Preamble

Morning Sitting

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair at Ten o'clock a.m.

PARLIAMENT No. 2 BILL

Again considered in Committee [Progress, 18th March]

[Mr. HARRY GOURLAY in the Chair]

10.0 a.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On a point of order. It will be within your recollection, Mr. Gourlay, because I think you were in the Chair yesterday on that occasion that, as reported in c. 252 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 18th March, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Social Services undertook to send a message to another place to request another place to grant permission for a document already in our Library to be cleared of a condition of confidentiality. The right hon. Gentleman, as reported, at c. 253, indicated that that document might be relevant to our discussions. May I ask, through you, whether such a message has been sent to another place and, if so, what response has been received?

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay): This is a matter entirely out-with the discretion of the Chair.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I appreciate that, Mr. Gourlay, but may I, through you, ask whichever Minister regards himself as responsible for our proceedings at the moment to indicate whether a promise given by a senior Minister to take action has been kept, and whether a response has resulted from his action? With respect, Mr. Gourlay, it is intolerable to ask the Committee to go on when action which a Minister promised to take to help the Committee has apparently not been taken and the promise ignored. I must ask, through you, that we have some answer from the Government before we proceed.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Further to that point of order. Not only should we like an indication from the Government that they will fulfil their pledge, but it is important

to point out that the document is no longer available in the Library. I tried to obtain it yesterday evening but, as it is House of Lords property, it has been returned to the House of Lords, and this puts the Committee in a difficult position. I gathered that the Library is under confidentiality, but it was revealed to me that the document was about 15 pages long. It is important to have this document and, as it is no longer in the Library, we ought almost to seek to report Progress immediately so that the document can be obtained.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Arthur Irvine): In reply to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), my understanding was—and I think it will be within the recollection of the Committee—that what my right hon. Friend proposed was that a message should be sent on the Resolution of this House if the House so wished. That was how the matter was interpreted by me. It will be appreciated that, as the matter developed and as the debate proceeded, the House did not express itself in that sense.

Mr. Heffer: Further to that point of order. The position is quite clear. The right hon. Gentleman said:
I would be prepared to ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to join me in sending the request to the House of Lords that it be made available as a document for the debate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1969; vol. 780, c. 252.]
That is a specific statement not hedged by any reference to the House wishing it. My right hon. Friend made it quite clear that he was prepared to join the Leader of the House in sending for that document. In those circumstances, surely we are entitled to know whether the document has been sent for, and when we shall get it so that we can consider it in the debate.

Mr. Powell: Further to that point of order. The intervention by the Solicitor-General was astonishing, running, as I am sure you would agree, Mr. Gourlay, having been present, clean contrary both to what was said and what was understood in the Committee yesterday afternoon.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has quoted the perfectly clear words which were used and


at no time withdrawn or modified by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Social Services. No reference was made to a Resolution and, if a Resolution had been required in the view of the Government, then it was the duty of the Government to fulfil that pledge by tabling a Resolution there and then during yesterday's sitting, so that it would be on the Order Paper today. If a Resolution were required, then it was a requirement of honour on the part of the Government that they should forthwith table the Resolution which would carry out their undertaking. If, on the other hand, a Resolution were not required, then they ought to have fulfilled the undertaking which was given by the right hon. Gentleman and not withdrawn.
The whole of the previous proceedings of this Sitting have been conducted on the basis that this document was to be obtained for the Committee as soon as possible, and we are now told that all that is brushed away. It is regarded as having been passed by. I feel that the Solicitor-General has not only not helped the Committee by his intervention but has shown how serious and well-founded was the anxiety of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter).

Mr. Michael Foot: Further to that point of order. If there had been a question, as is suggested by the Solicitor-General, that this matter of the document would be disposed of by a Resolution of the House, presumably there would have been some discussion on this matter when we later had a debate upon the Motion to report Progress. But there was no reference to any Resolution, either by the Government spokesman or by anybody else. As far as I know, no one from any quarter suggested that it would be settled by a Resolution. So far from that being the case, in the last intervention which was made in the debate on the Motion to report Progress, referring to an intervention from the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey), the Secretary of State for Social Services said:
The hon. Gentleman has the advantage over me. I have said that if there is a document, as I am sure there is, I am prepared to see whether it can be passed from the Lords to the Commons. I have since learned from my hon. Friend
—that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon).

This was the interpretation put upon his speech by the Minister—
and confirmed, that there is nothing in it which has not been published previously.
That was an argument which had run throughout the debate.
Unfortunately it was not possible to continue that discussion, because my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Deputy Leader of the House of Commons intervened with one of the most telling interventions in the whole of our debate.
So far from it being the case that the Committee left this matter, after we had discussed it on the Motion to report Progress, on the understanding that it might have been dealt with by a Resolution, in fact the Committee decided otherwise—which is what the Solicitor-General has just suggested now—the last words said by the Minister in charge of the Bill on this matter being:
I have said that if there is a document, as I am sure there is, I am prepared to see whether it can be passed from the Lords to the Commons."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1969; Vol. 780, c. 296.]
On any understanding of that language, it must be accepted that all of us assumed that some action would be taken by the Government to see that something was done about the document. It is an astonishing state of affairs that we should come back on the following morning not only to discover that nothing has been done about the document but also to be presented with an entirely different reason from any previously offered why this should be the case.
We are back again, I fear, in the situation which we faced at four o'clock yesterday; that is, that we are not able to proceed with the discussion in the manner in which the Committee would wish to proceed. Therefore, Mr. Gourlay, I hope that you will once again accept a Motion to report Progress. We must get to the bottom of this matter. We must have an authoritative statement from the Government whether they propose, as the Solicitor-General suggested, to deal with this question and whether we can obtain documents from our own Library only by Resolutions of the House of Commons, after having been given an undertaking that the Minister would take the action which the Committee thought desirable.
Everyone who heard the debate yesterday must have concluded that the document was to be dealt with by the Minister in charge in a manner which we hoped would be satisfactory to the Committee. We are now confronted with an entirely different state of affairs. I stress the point again which we had to make so often yesterday. The discussion on the Amendment is one which can be influenced by what may or may not be in the document which we have asked to see and which the Minister said he thought should be made available if the Committee wished to have it. There has been no suggestion that the Committee does not wish to have it.
I submit that it would be a further aggravation of the situation if it were now to be said that documents which it was important for hon. Members to have so that they could continue their debates, and which I think hon. Members on both sides would think to be substantial documents or, at any rate, documents which should be examined, should be made available only on a majority decision of the House of Commons. It would be an astonishing exercise of their power, if they possess such power, for the Front Bench to say that documents will be provided only on a Resolution of the House, particularly as we thought—admittedly after some time and trouble—that we had satisfactorily disposed of this aspect of the matter.
We all thought yesterday that the Government would dispose of the question of the document by inviting the House of Lords to enable it to be made available to hon. Members. We all thought that we should be able to obtain the document. Now we are suddenly confronted with an entirely different situation.
I submit, Mr. Gourlay, that those are substantial reasons why a Motion to report Progress is again the only way in which we can satisfactorily deal with the matter.

Dr. Bennett: On a point of order. While I feel that the arguments which have so far been put in connection with the point of order under discussion are paramount, it seems that it would be equivalent to asking a doctor to diagnose the illness of a patient when he has not

had any sight of the patient or heard anything of his symptoms or to asking a lawyer to practise his profession when he has never read any law if the Government were to ask the Committee to legislate on this matter without any of the information which is easily available.
I ask you, Mr. Gourlay, first, to agree to accept a Motion to report Progress. Secondly, might I ask you to clarify what is most bewildering to me—whether the remarks of the Secretary of State last night contained a definite and well-founded assertion that a Resolution of the House would be necessary before that document could be applied for? Will the Chair kindly enlighten us whether that is so?

10.15 a.m.

Mr. Sheldon: Further to that point of order. Not only is the quotation which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) put before the Committee important in that it was stated that the document would be available as a document for the debate, but there is another quotation which should be noted in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services said:
I have suggested to the Committee that, if it is the Committee's wish, this information, instead of being made available on a confidential basis, should be made available to the Committee as a whole."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1969; Vol. 780, c. 256.]
I took this to be a final and clear statement of my right hon. Friend's intention. There was no doubt in my mind that we were to have this document made available.
In his earlier comment the Secretary of State talked about mystifying for mystification's sake. There is no greater mystification than that with which we are faced this morning, because we had a distinct undertaking that the document was to be made available. Although we were not to have the benefit of that document for the Amendment which we were then debating, I felt that at least we should have it for the very important debate on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, on which we could cover some of this ground with the great advantage of the figures and the documentation which would be available. This is of extreme importance. It looks as though we are to go forward without


having any understanding of the important figures and of the basis of this decision.
If the House of Commons means anything at all, we should be able to rely on undertakings of this character. If not, our debates become very difficult to arrange. We are unable to decide how to fit in the kind of research project which we may have in mind or how to deploy our arguments. More important, we shall be under great limitations as to what we need to investigate. This undertaking was given and I ask that it be honoured.

Sir Lionel Heald: I did not take part in the debate yesterday, but I was present during the whole of the discussion. I came here this morning, although I have to attend another Committee in a few minutes, with the expectation of getting the document, being able to study it, and then playing a useful part in the debate.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) explained yesterday in the clearest possible way the importance and relevance of this document to the core of the Bill. It is the basis for the composition of the reformed House of Lords. I understood that the right hon. Gentleman undertook to let us have the document. I came here this morning expecting to be able to get it. I now learn that not only are we not to get it but that the right hon. Gentleman, or someone else, has taken steps to remove it from the jurisdiction of the House of Commons. I regard this is a very grave matter. If it cannot be raised now, it should be raised at the highest possible level—with Mr. Speaker in the House of Commons.

Mr. John Lee: Further to that point of order. It is many hours since this undertaking was given. It was given at a time when it was the confident expectation of many hon. Members that the Committee would be sitting all night and there would be plenty of opportunity, because the facilities of the House of Commons remain open all night, for a search and for the document to be produced. This does not appear to have been done. No attempt has been made to produce the document, although the House sat until 12.35 a.m. before being suspended.
I therefore endorse the suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) that a Motion to report Progress should be accepted. If that cannot be done, should we not agree to suspend the sitting of the Committee until the document is sent for?
I do not know the right procedure— whether we ask that the Serjeant at Arms should be despatched to the House of Lords to obtain a copy of the document —but at least that is a proposal which I put before you, Mr. Gourlay, because this situation cannot be allowed to go on. We must have the document here.
It is right, too, that I should make this suggestion because this will be yet another reason for a debate on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill. If, as I expect, there is an attempt to curtail that right—I do not know, but it is always possible—I shall be able to show that there will be many matters to raise in that debate. This document, if not produced soon, should form a subject of part of that debate.

The Solicitor-General: This matter is being dealt with by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee on the basis of an undertaking. I ask the Committee to consider what was said by my right hon. Friend. He said:
I am making a suggestion to the Committee. I did not know of the existence of the document … the most courteous thing for us to do would be to send a message to the other place suggesting that it should be laid as a document on the Table here."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1969; Vol. 780, c. 252.]
Later he said:
I have said that if there is a document, as I am sure there is, I am prepared to see whether it can be passed from the Lords to the Commons. I have since learnt from my hon. Friend, and confirmed, that there is nothing in it which has not been published previously."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March. 1969; Vol. 780, c. 296.]
My submission to the Committee is that that is not an undertaking in the proper sense and that it is clearly implicit that what is required in the procedure which my right hon. Friend has proposed is a Resolution of the House. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), with his commercial experience, will recognise that that has not the character of an undertaking such as


is suggested. I suggest to the Committee that as the Amendment with which this controversy about the document is concerned has been disposed of, it is wholly appropriate that the Committee should go on with the business.

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Having heard the numerous points of order, I must say that this is not a matter for the Chair, and I suggest that we should proceed with Amendment No. 121. Mr. Sheldon.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On a point of order. Mr. Gourlay, I know that the Committee always likes to accept your guidance and advice, but I am sure that you could not possibly expect us to leave the matter there in the light of what has been said by the Solicitor-General, including, as it did, a personal reference to myself.
As I understood it, the Solicitor-General said that a Minister's undertaking, unless tied up with the strictness required in a commercial contract, is not to be regarded as binding. This is a devaluation of ministerial assurances—

The Solicitor-General: rose—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am on a point of order. The Solicitor-General may seek to rise in a few moments when I have finished my submission. What the Solicitor-General said amounts to a devaluation of a Ministerial undertaking without precedent in my experience in this Committee or in the House. The words which the Solicitor-General read are clear and plain. I have some respect for the Secretary of State for Social Services, and I say that that undertaking was honestly and sincerely given. The words are absolutely unequivocal.
Though the Solicitor-General takes the view that he has been assured that the document contains nothing new, the Secretary of State for Social Services repeated for the third time in the hearing of the Committee his undertaking to get it. The Solicitor-General may take the view, as may his right hon. Friend, that there is nothing new in the document, but it is a new doctrine that where a document exists the Committee is bound to accept the judgment of Ministers whether there is anything of importance in it. It

is the whole purpose of our Rules—the Rules in respect of which I made a submission yesterday—that the Committee must be the judge of that.
Mr. Gourlay, if you are not prepared, as I still hope you are, to accept a Motion to report Progress, may I put to you an alternative suggestion, namely, that if a Resolution to another place is required, and if one is submitted to you, as it can easily be submitted from this side or that side of the Committee in the next few minutes, you accept it and allow us to proceed and seek to have implemented a pledge given in good faith by a senior member of the Government as recently as yesterday?

The Solicitor-General: I rise because of the observations which the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) let fall. The right hon. Gentleman must not put into my mouth words which I did not utter. He had something to say yesterday about inconsequences. He has demonstrated that attribute today.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Further to that point of order. Mr. Gourlay, I must ask you to consider the point which has been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). The Solicitor-General quoted selectively from the Delphic utterances of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Social Services in his many interventions yesterday. In fact, it is possible to find in them categorical assurances that this document would be made available.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Even by commercial standards.

Mr. Ridley: That is so. Yesterday, because of the absence of the document, I found myself unable to contribute to the debate. It seemed to me that the debate was meaningless, and I therefore held back from seeking to catch the eye of the Chair.
The Secretary of State for Social Services said yesterday:
I have suggested to the Committee that, if it is the Committee's wish, this information, instead of being made available on a confidential basis, should be made available to the Committee as a whole."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1969; Vol. 780, c. 256.]


If that is not a Ministerial undertaking, whether commercial or not, I do not know what is.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: It is a suggestion.

Mr. Ridley: That is using double-talk to the worst extent that I have ever heard in this honourable House.
An undertaking was given by the Secretary of State for Social Services. We are told by the Solicitor-General that the undertaking can be honoured by means of a Resolution of the House. He has twice said that if the House passes such a Resolution the undertaking can be honoured. Without animadverting to the peculiar circumstances where by it seems necessary for the House to pass a Resolution before it can obtain documents from its own Library, may I ask you to press the Solicitor-General to agree to the tabling of the necessary Resolution so that the House can proceed to obtain the document?
It may be that it would be wise to adjourn for a few hours so that the Resolution can be drafted and laid in a constitutional manner. I am not a great expert in the procedures of the House. It may be that it would be expedient to send for Mr. Speaker and ask him to take us out of Committee. But one or other of these things must be done. The matter cannot be left where it is. The Government have given an undertaking to produce a document. They have said that the document can be produced by a Resolution of the House, and we want to know how we can proceed to obtain this Resolution so that the document can be produced.
I wonder, Mr. Gourlay, whether you would be kind enough to inform the Committee whether you would accept a manuscript Resolution drafted by my hon. Friends. I assure you that my hon. Friends and I could produce such a Resolution within a very few seconds so that the proceedings of the Committee need not be delayed. If you agree to accept such a Resolution, I shall proceed forthwith to draft it.

The Deputy Chairman: If the House wishes to communicate with another place, that is a matter for the House. The job of the Committee is to proceed with the Bill.

10.30 a.m.

Mr. Heffer: Further to that point of order. It is quite clear that the Committee cannot leave the position as it is at present. I left school at 14 years of age and had some education after that only off my own bat, but to me words are words and undertakings are undertakings. My right hon. Friend said clearly:
I have said that if there is a document, as I am sure there is, I am prepared to see whether it can be passed from the Lords to the Commons.
He went on:
I have since learned from my hon. Friend, and confirmed, that there is nothing in it which has not been published previously."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1969; Vol.780, c. 296.]
He did not go on to say that therefore this document ought not to be produced. He said that although there was nothing in it, he was prepared to ask for it to be brought from another place. It was a very clear statement. The whole Committee understands that. It was not a suggestion but a clear statement which all hon. Members fully understand.
Under those circumstances, surely it is quite clear that before this Committee proceeds to discuss the Bill further, we ought to adjourn or to have the Resolution before the House which the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) suggested so that we can discuss the matter. We cannot proceed further this morning with debate on further Amendments until we either have the undertaking carried out by the Government or a Resolution discussed in the House, otherwise, we shall be making the whole business of Parliamentary democracy a mockery. I understand your view, Mr. Gourlay, that this is not a matter solely for you; it is a matter for my right hon. Friends. It is in their court to fulfil their previous undertaking and to let us have this document.

Mr. Powell: Further to that point of order. The Committee finds itself in exactly the kind of difficulty to which attention has several times previously been drawn by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). It will be within your recollection, Mr. Gourlay, that as a result of a point of order


raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) we have had two interventions by a Minister. Two statements have been made to this Committee, in the course of the raising of these points of order, on behalf of the Government. They were important statements and statements to which a number of hon. Members have obviously taken grave exception.
It is clearly intolerable that we should not be able to discuss, ask questions, about, and consider these two separate and important statements made by the Solicitor-General. At the moment we are able to do so only in the form of raising with you successive points of order. Because of that I wish to make a submission. I refer—briefly, since I am on a point of order—to those two successive statements, contradictory one with the other, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman made.
I refer first to his second intervention, which was contrary to his first intervention, in which he denied altogether that there had been an undertaking given by the Secretary of State yesterday. He referred to the wording used by the right hon. Gentleman as reported at column 252 and laid particular stress on the conditional mood of the verb—that his right hon. Friend "would be prepared". To treat a term of courtesy which we are all accustomed to using as though it modified what was clearly understood as an expression of Ministerial intention is unworthy of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
It was particularly unworthy to couple it with an obscure reference to commercial practice in connection with my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames. If he does not like the conditional tense, he can find the indicative in column 296 where, in the last sentence but one before the Committee came to a decision, the right hon. Gentleman said, "I am prepared". In other words, the right hon. Gentleman, at the moment at which the Committee came to a decision, declared that he was prepared. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman told us that this was apparently taken back and cancelled by the following sentence in which, he claims, the right hon. Gentleman expressed the opinion that since there was nothing new

in the document, all that he had said or offered before was withdrawn. I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman meant that.
It is impracticable for this Committee to proceed when it has been told by a Law Officer of the Crown that what the Committee regarded as an undertaking has been withdrawn. On the first intervention the Solicitor-General said that if we are to get this document, if the undertaking or suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Social Services is to be carried out, it must be done by a Resolution of the House. I assume for the purpose of my submission that that is correct, although I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Circencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) that it would be a monstrous thing if whenever we wanted a document, and a Minister promised it we had to have a Resolution of the House asking for it.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman expressly suggested that the course of the debate indicated that the Committee did not want such a Resolution. There is only one way known to this House or this Committee of ascertaining the wishes of the House or the Committee. It is to put a proposition to the House or the Committee. We cannot ascertain whether the House or Committee would like a Resolution except by putting a Resolution and seeing to which conclusion the House or the Committee comes upon it. We must therefore be allowed to test whether the view of the Government is right or wrong that the Committee somehow, tacitly or by implication, indicated that it would not like a Resolution, if that be necessary to carry out the right hon. Gentleman's undertaking.
A few minutes ago, Mr. Gourlay, you advised the Committee that such a Resolution could be made only by the House and that for the wishes of the Committee on this matter to be tested, and for the matter to be decided which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has opened of his own accord today by his allegation, it would be necessary for a Resolution to be placed before the House. We cannot do that unless this Committee gives way to the whole House. I therefore submit to you that on the basis of what the Government


themselves, through the mouth of the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said to the Committee, it would be appropriate for you, in order that a Resolution may be moved in the whole House, to accept a Motion now, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again. It is that Motion which I ask your permission to submit to the Committee.

The Solicitor-General: I rise because the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) thought fit to refer to "unworthiness". I suggest that if the reports of my two earlier interventions are considered, they will be found not to have any contradiction whatever. I leave it at that.
On the issue which the right hon. Gentleman latterly raised, he and the Committee will appreciate that these alleged undertakings of my right hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "Alleged?"] —I have taken the point and I persist that this was not an undertaking—or the words referred to were said during a debate on a Motion, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Sir D. Glover: It was on a point of order.

The Solicitor-General: They took place in the course of a debate on that Motion. One has the words of my right hon. Friend:
I am prepared to see whether it can be passed from the Lords to the Commons. I have since learnt from my hon. Friend … that there is nothing in it"—
that is, nothing in the document—
which has not been published previously."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1969; Vol. 780, c. 296.]
The Committee then divided upon the Question, That the Question be now put, and then upon the Question, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again. The Committee, by a majority, rejected that Motion and by that Division indicated its attitude— [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—to the matters which had been previously dealt with.

Mr. Maudling: Surely the Solicitor-General cannot expect the Committee to accept that. It is an astonishing argument. I understand that an undertaking

was given by the Secretary of State for Social Services, when he said that he was prepared to do something. On the basis of that undertaking, the House took the vote. To say that the undertaking then disappears is an astonishing argument.

The Solicitor-General: I think that the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), for reasons we can all understand, was not present when the earlier exchanges took place, in the course of which I put to the Committee, rightly or wrongly, my view that what my right hon. Friend had presented to the Committee was not an undertaking.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: The Solicitor-General has put forward the most extraordinary doctrine. It is one of the most amazing constitutional and political doctrines ever heard, namely, that any promise given can be destroyed by a vote forced on the House of Commons by the Chief Whip. This is the end of truth. I hope that the Solicitor-General will explain what he means, because it is the most dangerous constitutional doctrine. It is impossible for the Committee to proceed. I wish to move that we adjourn immediately so that this whole matter can be reconsidered by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Michael Foot: Mr. Gourlay, your last advice to the Committee was that we should proceed with the discussion on the Amendment. I want to reinforce some of the points of order why that is an impossible course for the Committee to adopt. I believe that if we adopted it, we should not be discharging the duties which we properly have to maintain the proper conduct of business.
I submit once again, on a number of grounds which I shall mention, that the only way in which the House of Commons makes provision under its Rules for dealing with a situation such as this is by a Motion to report Progress. Only by doing that can we extricate ourselves from difficulties which are becoming greater with every intervention by the Solicitor-General.
First, there is a dispute whether there was an undertaking. I do not say that it was an undertaking in the sense of being a firm, absolute contract, signed, sealed and delivered. I think that it was a statement made in absolute good faith


by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. Contrary to the charges which are made against my right hon. Friend, I know from all my dealings with him over many years that he is a man of absolute integrity.
I believe that he gave the undertaking to the Committee partly because he believed that in one sense it might support his general argument on the Bill. He did not think there was any harm in it. His attitude was, "It happens that all this has been published, but if you want to have the document, and if the Committee feels as it apparently does, I give an undertaking", or "I give an agreement", or "I give an acknowledgment, that I will invite the House of Lords to agree that we should have it made available to us". There was no argument about it. Whatever may have been the vote subsequently, everybody assumed that the request would be made —in a courteous manner, of course.
We do not dispute the claim by the Secretary of State for Social Services that the matter would have to be dealt with as one of courtesy between the two Houses. We all understand that undertakings or agreements or acknowledgments between the two Front Benches, or even the back benches, and between the two Houses are dealt with on that basis. Therefore, my first submission why it is not possible to proceed with the debate and why there should be a Motion to report Progress is that there has at any rate been a misunderstanding between the Front Bench and the rest of the Committee this morning as to what was the undertaking or the agreement or the acknowledgment last night.
The second reason becomes more serious in my opinion. The Solicitor-General's first claim was that the matter could be dealt with only by a Resolution of the House of Commons. Presumably that was not an argument which he thought up on the spur of the moment.

The Solicitor-General: The Solicitor-General indicated assent.

10.45 a.m.

Mr. Foot: My hon. and learned Friend acknowledges that. That was the Government's understanding, apparently. I am glad to have the Solicitor-General's acknowledgment, because I think that it greatly reinforces my

point. A decision was apparently taken by the Government following our debate yesterday that, when the proceedings were renewed today, it would be announced from the Government Front Bench that the matter would be dealt with by a Resolution of the House of Commons. The Solicitor-General assents to that proposition.

The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend has interpreted a nod of mine as an assent to a proposition. I do not want there to be any misunderstanding. At the end of yesterday's proceedings it was my understanding that, if the document were to be laid, it would require a Resolution of the House of Commons. That was my understanding then. It is my understanding now. My assent does not go beyond that.

Mr. Foot: I understand that. It was the Solicitor-General's understanding following our proceedings yesterday that the matter should be dealt with by a Resolution of the House of Commons. My hon. and learned Friend did not necessarily discuss this remarkable view of his with any of his hon. Friends, although he imagined that they would all concur in it. I accept entirely what my hon. and learned Friend says, but it is a very strange interpretation to put upon yesterday's events. In my experience in the House of Commons, I cannot recall an ocasion on which a question of having to send for documents had to be dealt with by a Resolution. There may have been such cases. I am not saying that there have not been. The rarity of such cases makes it all the more remarkable that the Solicitor-General should have reached this conclusion last night as the result of yesterday's debate and should not have confided it to anyone.
However, he has confided it to us this morning. In response to a question this morning, he told us that the proper way for this matter to be dealt with would be by a Resolution of the House of Commons. I submit as my second reason why we should not proceed with the debate that, if it is the Government's view—I am sure that the Solicitor-General is speaking for the Government —that the matter should be dealt with only by a Resolution of the House of Commons, then the Government should have first declared to the House of Commons how it could proceed to have a


Resolution, and secondly, should have made the facilities available for us so to proceed. If it is the Government's view that this question of attending the document can be dealt with only by this elaborate paraphernalia of a Resolution, the obligation is on the Government to explain when that Resolution will be presented to us and how it will be presented to us.
I come to the third reason, arising from the Solicitor-General's intervention, why it is improper for us to proceed with the debate now. I do not know what other hon. Gentlemen think about it. When the Resolution is before the House, the matter will be debated. My first thought on the matter is that it is doubtful even whether the House should accept the proposition that such matters as these must be dealt with by Resolutions. After all, particularly when it is tied up with what the Solicitor-General said later about a vote, the implication of what he said is that we should be able to get the documents only if the Resolution were carried. The implication is that the Government might use their majority to decide whether such a Resolution should be passed.
In that case, what the Government would be asking us to accept by such a procedure is that documents, particularly documents concerning the relationship between the two Houses, should be made available only if a majority in the House of Commons voted for them to be made available. That would be a deprivation of the rights of back benchers. It would be a novel doctrine. This is why I think it so remarkable that the Solicitor-General should have announced it so casually. If we were to accept it, the provision of documents for Members of the House of Commons would be partly dependent upon the whim of the Government and the automatic majority, in so far as it exists, of the Government.
We come to the next implication of what the Solicitor-General has said to us, which, in my opinion, is even more important and is a further reason why we can deal with this matter properly only in a debate on a Motion to report Progress. He has put his own construction, the Government's construction, on the vote which we had yesterday on the Motion to report Progress, a construction which most of us, I think, find extremely far-fetched. Perhaps

the Solicitor-General has powerful arguments in support of his view, but for him to say that he can put an interpretation on that vote which decides which form of documents are to be available to us and what is the meaning of what the Committee decided, is not, I submit, an approach which we can accept.
When the Committee decided yesterday not to report Progress and to continue the debate, there may have been many reasons for that decision. The Government may just have thought that they wanted to get on with the business. That is always possible. Some hon. Members may have thought that our arguments were not persuasive. But it is absurd for the Solicitor-General to say that the conclusion on that Motion meant that we had abandoned the demand to secure this document from the House of Lords.

The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend will bear in mind that he himself cogently argued that the matter of the document was best dealt with in a debate on a Motion to report Progress. His words appear at col. 254 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. AS the matter was later dealt with in a debate on such a Motion, is he right to deny any significance to the Division at the end of the debate?

Mr. Foot: I am again grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his intervention, for he is confirming what I said. True, I claimed that the matter of the document—I argued this on the points of order originally—would best be dealt with if we had a debate on a Motion to report Progress—

The Solicitor-General: And there was such a debate.

Mr. Foot: Yes, we got it. Not merely did we have the debate but, as a result of it, we secured what most of us thought was a concession, so to call it. I do not state that in any derogatory sense because I think that Governments should make concessions in these matters. Indeed, they would get themselves out of a lot of difficulties if they made more concessions. What we secured as a result of that debate was, so to call it, a partial accommodation to the views of those who wanted the document. Thus our oratory was not so dissuasive as might have been thought. We produced at least part of the result.
My hon. and learned Friend may ask why, in that circumstance, we proceeded, why did we not withdraw the Motion if that is what we wanted, why did we proceed to a vote? If my hon. and learned Friend will do me the courtesy of reading the rest of my speech, he will see that I, like others, adduced additional arguments showing why the debate should be postponed altogether. There were references in my speech to the fact that Amendments were not being called, to the question of a Report stage, and many other arguments.
What my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General cannot escape from is the concluding words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. I know that a peroration is sometimes not the most important part of a speech, but his peroration in this case was the conclusion of the whole matter, the climax to which he had been leading. In order to pacify the Committee—perhaps he got the vote by it; who can tell?—my right hon. Friend said that he would seek to secure the document from the House of Lords.
Now, in his last intervention, the Solicitor-General tells us that all that is wiped out by the vote, that because the vote went against those who were arguing that they wanted the document, that because it went against them on another a more embracing matter, the whole question is to be pushed on one side.
My submission is that it is not a proper course for a Committee of the House to go ahead with a discussion on Amendments standing on the Paper because, as was the case in the difficulties which we encountered yesterday, the Amendment next to be taken is one concerning matters in the document. That is so according to the statement of the Minister himself. Whether or not he considers that it should be published, whether he thinks that it is publishable or unpublishable, no one has denied that the matters in the document are relevant to the question of attendance at the House of Lords, and that is the subject of the next Amendment to be taken.
I submit, therefore, Mr. Gourlay, that a new situation has been created by the three interventions of the Solicitor-General. First, the Government have put upon themselves the obligation to tell us

how we should proceed to a Resolution, when we are to have the Resolution, whether the Resolution is to be presented by the Government or by other hon. Members, when facilities are to be provided for that Resolution. We have had a firm statement from the Government that this is the only way by which we can obtain the satisfaction which we thought we had obtained by other means following our discussions yesterday.
I hope very much, therefore, that you will accede to our proposal, Mr. Gourlay, that we should move to report Progress. The Government will not gain otherwise. I realise that whether the Government gain or lose is not a matter for you. You are concerned solely with the orderly conduct of the Committee's business, and you are entitled in your discretion, as you did yesterday, to decide whether it is possible for the Committee to report Progress. There are some occasions on which it is done because substantial progress has been made, but there are many other occasions in the history of the House—this is exactly why that provision is available—on which it has been done in order to enable the House to escape in an orderly manner from a hopeless tangle.
No one who has listened to our proceedings this morning can deny that we are moving into a greater and greater tangle. The more we proceed in that tangle, the more interventions we have from the Government, the more does the question become enlarged, the more does the question of a Resolution enter into the matter, the more must we consider the question of which documents are to be the subject of such Resolutions, and so on. The stone has been thrown into the pool, and the circles are growing larger and larger. The only way in which our proceedings can be restored to a semblance of order, I submit, is by having a Motion before the Committee which will allow a wider discussion than points of order can properly permit.
I seriously urge, therefore, Mr. Gourlay, that that is the proper way for us to proceed. This is the reason why the instrument of a Motion to report Progress has been made so flexible. It is one of the glories of the House and its Committees that our procedure can be stretched to accommodate difficult


situations. It is the way in which we try to ensure that, instead of clashes resulting in ill temper and misunderstanding, we so arrange matters that, when there happens to be a blockage, we can say, "Very well. Let us hold up the proceedings for a while and see whether we can untangle the tangle". That is what I suggest we should do now, in proper order, on a Motion to report Progress.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

11.0 a.m.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. Having noted the progress of the Committee this morning, and having very carefully considered the numerous and lengthy points of order, I cannot accept a Motion to report Progress at this stage. Whatever decisions on the matter of the document are taken, the duty of the Chair and the Committee, I suggest, is now to proceed with Amendment No. 121.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: On a point of order. The Committee finds itself in a painful, if not intolerable, situation. Both the Solicitor-General and the Under-Secretary of State has cast a slur on the reputation for integrity of the Secretary of State for Social Services. They, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman if he were here, would repudiate that slur immediately. The Solicitor-General gave two quotations from what the Secretary of State said, but he did not give the third. The right hon. Gentleman said:
I have suggested to the Committee that, if it is the Committee's wish,
—and it plainly was—
this information, instead of being made available on a confidential basis, should be made available to the Committee as a whole."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1969; Vol. 780, c. 256.]
That is not a conditional or indicative; it is almost an imperative. It is the plainest possible undertaking. The Under-Secretary, who has left, said that it was a suggestion, but it was a suggestion that this undertaking by the Secretary of State should satisfy the Committee. It was not a suggestion that this was what would happen. It was a suggestion incorporating a definite undertaking.
The Solicitor-General says, in effect, that the undertaking was washed out by the vote. By analogy, this would reduce every Government statement to a nullity. If the Government give an undertaking

during the wind-up of a Second Reading debate on a problem which has troubled the Opposition, and then win their vote, according to the extraordinary doctrine put forward by the Solicitor-General that undertaking would be washed out by the Government's victory in the Division Lobby. That means that any Government undertaking during the proceedings on the Bill will be a nullity, which is not a way in which the Committee can proceed. With the greatest respect to what you said, Mr. Gourlay, it cannot do so until it has clarification from the Government on whether anything said by Government spokesmen is an undertaking or a suggestion or will be washed out by a subsequent vote.
Surely, these matters must be cleared up on a Motion to report Progress before we can have any meaningful discussion?

The Deputy Chairman: Order. This is an intervention similar to many which we have already had. I have already given my Ruling on those points of order, and I suggest that we proceed to discuss the Amendment.

Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order. When I left here yesterday afternoon, I thought that the situation was completely clear in my mind. Undertakings were given, and there is no question that we face a breach of faith between the Government and the Committee. When I raised the matter yesterday afternoon, I doubted whether any document could be given on a confidential basis to the Library of the House of Commons. Certainly, the Library should not have received a confidential document which was not available to hon. Members.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. I have already been addressed on similar points of order. I indicated that this is not a matter for the Chair, and I suggest that we proceed with the Amendment.

Mr. Pannell: May I be allowed to continue on one other point?

The Deputy Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must resume his seat when I am standing. I have ruled that the point which he is raising has already been dealt with.

Mr. Pannell: On a point of order. I should like to address my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General


through you, Mr. Gourlay. I understand that he is under the impression that a Resolution of the House should have been moved. This is a completely different point. You and the Clerk will know, Mr. Gourlay, that by no stretch of Standing Orders could that have been done. Therefore, if I am compelled to resume my seat, I hope that the Solicitor-General, who is a man of honour, will look carefully at his words. I am sure that inadvertently he has misled the Committee. There is no question but that a Resolution could not have been moved during our proceedings. I notice that the Clerk is in attendance on you, Mr. Gourlay. This matter will not finish here. The question of the orderliness of the document will be raised in the House at 3.30 p.m.
I hope that we can make progress, not in the procedural sense but in the practical sense. The Committee has been badly dealt with. No one can suggest that we could have had a Resolution during our proceedings to implement what was a definite pledge from the Government Front Bench yesterday afternoon. That is my point. If I say nothing more about it, it is not because I do not feel strongly, but because I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Gourlay.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: Further to that point of order. I have not troubled you this morning, Mr. Gourlay, but I must advance a new point on why we cannot proceed further without resolving the matter under discussion.
The only person who can interpret what the Secretary of State for Social Services meant by what he said yesterday is the Secretary of State. He is not present. I make no complaint about that. We all know the problems of Sitings at this hour and senior Ministers' difficulties in attending them. This point was advanced by some of us when the right hon. Gentleman, as Leader of the House, thought that morning sittings were a good idea. It is impossible, as has been proved this morning, for another Government spokesman to seek to interpret what one of his right hon. Friends meant when he made observations.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. The interpretation of Minister's speeches is not a matter for the Chair. I have already

given a Ruling on the points of order raised, and the right hon. Gentleman's point of order is similar to others. I suggest that we proceed with the Amendment.

Mr. Deedes: With respect, I must press a further point. The Committee is by no means satisfied that the interpretation given to us this morning honours the obligation which it is clear the Secretary of State for Social Services wished to offer yesterday. As long as that doubt remains, there is a doubt as to the honourable intentions of the Secretary of State, which I am sure is a most unfair doubt to be entertained. It would be unfair to him to leave matters in the present state of doubt and to proceed as you suggest, Mr. Gourlay. He must attend the proceedings before we can sensibly continue our discussions.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. The Chair has no power to compel Ministers to attend the Committee.

Mr. John Lee: On a point of order. A point was raised earlier on which no Ruling has yet been given. About half an hour ago the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) sought your guidance, Mr. Gourlay, as to the way in which the doctrine of obtaining a document by Resolution should be implemented. If this is accepted—and it appears that what seemed to me a novel and bizarre procedural doctrine has now become part of the law of the House—there must be some way in which Members may be guided by the Chair as to the way in which the Motion should be put.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. It is not for the Chairman of this Committee to give procedural guidance on matters of that kind.

Mr. Lee: In that case, will you accept an oral Motion from me that the document be sent for?

The Deputy Chairman: Order. It is not within the competence of the Chair to accept such a Motion.

Mr. Hastings: During the past half-hour, Mr. Gourlay, you have assured us more than once that you have answered the points of order put to you in the past hour or so. Our difficulty, perhaps,


is that some of us feel that you are not in a position to answer certain of them, particularly that raised by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). It seems to some of us that nothing short of a new doctrine has been brought to the Committee by the Solicitor-General. As the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) said, every intervention by the hon. and learned Gentleman seems to get us into greater trouble.
The kernel of that proposition seems to be the doctrine that if we wish to obtain from our Library documents which, according to the general consensus of the Committee, are relevant to our discussions, there must be a Resolution before the House. This is the cornerstone of the difficulty. If it is impossible for the Chair to explain to us how we are to bring such a Resolution forward— and the right hon. and learned Gentleman said nothing to indicate how it should be done, or where the doctrine came from in the first place, which would be of considerable interest—we are in great difficulty. We are on a point of order which is concerned with a point of doctrine in respect of our Rules and procedure.
If it is impossible for the Chair to rule on the way in which we can obtain the document in question on the basis of a Resolution, should not we adopt the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), namely, that the Committee should give way to the whole House? This seems to be the only answer. The position seems to be that the Chair, through no fault of the occupant, is in no position to advise us how we should go forward.

[Mr. Sydney Irving in the Chair.]

Mr. Ridley: Since I was the Member who originally brought this matter up, I should like to press it a little further. I believe that Erskine May would turn in his grave if he had been alive—[Laughter.]—

The Chairman: Unfortunately Erskine May is not in the Chair. I am not sure that the hon. Member is on a point of order.

Mr. Ridley: I meant no reflection on your occupation of the Chair, Mr. Irving,

when I referred to Erskine May in that sense. I apologise for my mixed metaphor. The point is that we have established the position that the only way in which this document can be produced is by Resolution of the House. Your predecessor quite correctly ruled that this is not the House—this is a Committee— and that we cannot obtain the document by moving a Resolution in Committee. Although the Committee clearly wishes to transform itself into a House it appears that it has no power to do so. That is why I referred to Erskine May. We have arrived at the extraordinary position in which, simply by going into Committee, we disfranchise ourselves from obtaining the document necessary to carry on our discussions in Committee.

The Chairman: We are getting into the extraordinary position of conducting a debate on points of order. I have listened carefully to the hon. Member. Indeed I gave way to him without replying to the "point of order" from which this discussion arose—but that was not a point of order either.

Mr. Ridley: My point of order is that an undertaking has been given. If you had been here earlier, Mr. Irving, you would have heard the point established that the undertaking had been given by the Secretary of State that this document would be made available. Since then we have been told that this can be done only by Resolution of the House. Now we are told that because the House is in Committee we cannot move a Resolution.

The Chairman: The hon. Member cannot debate that matter. It is not a matter for the Chairman in Committee.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I want to raise a fresh point of order affecting your position in the Chair. Mr. Irving. Every hon. Member knows that the Chairman acts quite impartially and pays no more attention to hon. Members on one side of the Committee than to those on the other side. On occasion the Chairman has to decide whether he should accept a Motion to report Progress. He decides that completely in his own right, on the basis whether there has been a sufficient opportunity—

11.15 a.m.

The Chairman: Order. I am grateful to the hon. Member for his opening


remarks and for the fact that he feels that I am doing my best to interpret Standing Orders in the spirit in which they are intended to be operated, but that Motion has been rejected in the recent past, and it is not the practice of the Committee or the House to allow a submission without some progress having been made in the intervening period. Unless the hon. Member intends to put a fresh point of order, I must rule his remarks out of order.

Mr. Lewis: With respect, Mr. Irving, you had not listened to the point that I was about to put. [Interruption.] I wish that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department would not try to take on the Chairman's job. It is not his job to call me to order.

The Chairman: Order. I hope that we can get on.

Mr. Lewis: I was about to say that you had not yet heard my point of order, Mr. Irving, which is that, taking account of all the circumstances, the Chairman either accepts or refuses to accept a Motion to report Progress. I am not referring to any specific Motion at this stage.
If, as is now the case, in deciding whether he should accept a Motion to report Progress the Chairman takes into account a statement made in good faith both to the House and to the Chair that certain papers or documents necessary for progress to be made will be produced, does not that mean that the Chairman may have been inadvertently misled in accepting or rejecting a Motion to report Progress? Had the Chair known that the document which had been promised had, in fact, not been brought forward, might not the Chair then have said, as was said yesterday, "I will accept the Motion to report Progress" even though he had refused such a Motion a short time before?

The Chairman: Order. Unless the hon. Member is to refer to new matter, I must rule against him.

Mr. Lewis: About three-quarters of an hour ago, Mr. Irving, your predecessor said that at that stage he would not accept the Motion. That is exactly what he said yesterday when, after two hours' discussion, he refused to accept the Motion.

Then, after another two hours, he did accept it. After what has been said since your predecessor made that remark, would you not consider a new Motion to report Progress, in the new knowledge of the difficulty in which the Chair has been placed?

The Chairman: I am sorry, but I cannot accept that submission.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Without disrespect to your predecessor, or to Erskine May, may I say that I am pleased to see you in the Chair, but it is important to inform you as to what has gone on—

The Chairman: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Member cannot reiterate what has been said in the last hour.

Mr. Fraser: With great respect, one point has become obscured, namely, the fact that the document in question has been removed from the Library of the House of Commons. That is very serious.

The Chairman: Order. I am afraid that the document is not a matter for the Chair. The hon. Member must find other means to proceed if he wishes to follow up this matter.

Mr. George Lawson: Is it not the case that there is a rule which applies even to point of order—the rule of tedious repetition? Is it not the case that if not merely one but many hon. Members insist upon tedious repetition it is the duty of the Chair to insist that such Members resume their seats and, if they refuse, to name them? Am I not entitled to ask—

The Chairman: Order. I understand that the hon. Member is trying to be helpful, but I hope that in the circumstances he will leave the conduct of the Chair to its occupant.

Mr. Lawson: Am I not entitled to ask that the Chair should give other hon. Members some protection? Is it not the case that this is just what we have not been getting on this Bill?

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is criticising the Chair.

Mr. Powell: Might I make a submission to you, Mr. Irving, on a point of order arising out of the advice which you gave to the Committee just now. That advice was that the Motion, That the


Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again, was one which the Chair did not, or did not normally, accept until progress had been made. Perhaps I may be allowed to put two points to you on that advice.
The first point is that, in fact, this present sitting is one with the sitting which was suspended at about midnight yesterday. I respectfully point out that progress has been made since the last consideration of this Motion, in that an Amendment—indeed, a whole group of Amendments—was disposed of by the Committee.
Might I further mention to you, Mr. Irving, that it will be within your recollection that at the beginning of this Sitting —suspended and resumed—yesterday afternoon, the Committee found itself in a difficulty which, after two hours, we were able to resolve, although progress had not then been made, only by the opportunity to debate the Motion to which you are referring.
If I might trespass upon your patience just so far, it is to emphasise the very close similarity between our difficulty now and that of yesterday; namely, that we have—and this is not the fault of the Committee—been confronted with, I think it is now three Ministerial statements [Interruption.] I am told four— which we are unable to examine, and which yet, from the very fact that they have been made, are germane to the whole matter.

The Chairman: With great respect, the right hon. Gentleman is covering ground that has been covered. To take the point that he made, which I think is one of substance, I did not say that as we had made progress yesterday we could not move to report Progress today. I said that the Motion had been refused quite recently and that the practice of the House was not to accept such a Motion again until some progress had been made.

Mr. Powell: May I put a different point of order, which, I think, calls for the assistance of the Chair. You will be aware, Mr. Irving, of the difficulty in which the House or a Committee finds itself when it has to resume a debate on the same subject in the morning after the debate had been adjourned late the previous night. One of the arrangements

which I imagine your predecessors in the Chair made to assist hon. Members in this difficulty is that, since we do not have HANSARD for that part of the Sitting which takes place after half-past ten o'clock, the HANSARD record shall be placed in the Library so that hon. Members can consult it before the debate is resumed.
After half-past ten last night there was a brief but important intervention by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department which it is very important for us to be able to see for the purpose of the questions which are still to be put to the Committee. This morning, there fore, I went to the Library in good time in order to consult what is available for our purposes—the OFFICIAL REPORT. I was told in the Library that HANSARD was—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Confidential.

Mr. Powell: Not confidential, no, but that it was not available—

The Chairman: Order. I think that I have the right hon. Gentleman's point, which is one of some relevance. Although I could not allow it to interrupt progress in the Committee this morning, it is a general question which may need looking into, and I shall be happy to look into it for the future. But I could not allow it to interfere with progress.

Mr. Powell: rose—

The Chairman: I think that I have dealt with the point made by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Michael Foot: I refer to an entirely fresh matter, Mr. Irving, following from your most recent Ruling, when you said that you could not accept a progress Motion, on the grounds that it had been rejected fairly recently by the previous occupant of the Chair.
Bowing to that Ruling, might I submit that both you and the previous occupant of the Chair should take into account the obvious dissatisfaction which prevails in different parts of the House about the difficulties which we think we are in; and that, therefore, if we do proceed to the next Amendment you will be willing to consider, when the debate has proceeded for a reasonable distance, our being able then to propose such a


Motion? We should be able then to have that Motion considered by the Committee and by the House before reaching a decision on this Amendment, so that the whole of the debate on this Amendment should not be conducted in circumstances in which we are denied access to the document in question.
I submit that this is an entirely fresh point. I understand that you do not wish to accept the Motion now, but I hope that at a later stage it may be possible for us to suggest that this might be the best course.

The Chairman: It is, for two reasons, very difficult for me to answer the hon. Gentleman. The first is that I should be committing the Chair to taking responsibility on a matter which is not within the province of the Chair— namely, the provision of documents. The second is that the Chair never rules hypothetically. That being so, I cannot help the hon. Member.

Mr. Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Irving. I thank you for the undertaking which you were good enough to give in reply to my previous submission that you would consider the difficulty. I ask you only to permit me to mention a further aggravation of that difficulty which occurred this morning, and about which I think you would wish to know if any thing is to be done to help the Committee in these circumstances. It is that the reason why the HANSARD report was not available to me in the Library was that it had been removed, quite properly and justifiably, for the use of an hon. Member, to whom I cannot properly refer as Mr. Gourlay but only as the previous occupant of the Chair—

The Chairman: Order. If the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to consult me privately, I shall be very glad to listen to him.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: When the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) referred to the availability or non-availability of documents in the Library, I think I heard you say, Mr. Irving, that this was a general question which could be looked into. If it can be looked into with regard to that point, why can it not be looked into by the Chair with regard to the other document?

The Chairman: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman misheard me. I made it quite clear that it was not the responsibility of the Chair but that, while I could not allow the matter to hinder progress, in order to be helpful to hon. Members I would see what I could do in this respect.

Mr. Lewis: rose—

The Chairman: If what the hon. Gentleman wishes to say pertains to the point which he has made, I should be grateful if he, too, would consult me in private, when I shall be glad to devote some time to the matter.

Sir D. Glover: While I am sure that the House will be delighted, Mr. Irving, to know that you will have private conversations with the right hon. Gentleman—

The Chairman: Order. We have to include the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), too.

Mr. Sheldon: I, too, came especially early this morning in order to consult the OFFICIAL REPORT, because certain statements were made pertaining to the documents after the ordinary edition of the OFFICIAL REPORT was printed. This is quite relevant—

The Chairman: Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's difficulty, and I have undertaken to see whether I can alleviate that difficulty in future, but I cannot allow further discussion on the matter.

Mr. Sheldon: Unfortunately, the point on which I wished to refer to the OFFI CIAL REPORT had direct relevance, in my opinion, both to the points of order which have been raised this morning and, possibly, to the debate on the next Amendment—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is assuming that I accepted this as a responsibility of the Chair. I made it quite clear, I think, that I was acting in another capacity only in order to be helpful to the Committee and that I could not allow this matter to hold up progress in the Committee.

Mr. Sheldon: Yes, but on this very important point of order—

The Chairman: Unless the hon. Gentleman has something new to put to me, I cannot hear him on that point.

Mr. Sheldon: I have something new on this point. If HANSARD had been available, it might have changed the attitude of some hon. Members and of your predecessor in certain decisions.

11.30 a.m.

The Chairman: That is just the submission which the right hon Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) was making, that it would help him in his deliberations this morning. I made it clear that it was not the responsibility of the Chair.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: rose—

The Chairman: I hope that the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) will allow the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) to move the Amendment. We could then make some progress.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. If I understand aright, the hon. Member is unable to move his Amendment, because he does not have HANSARD.

The Chairman: The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne will make up his own mind about whether to move the Amendment.

Mr. Sheldon: I beg to move Amendment No. 121, in page 4, line 18, after 'given', insert
'except on account of other public business when, if the House is sitting, it must be given before'.
The purpose of this Amendment, which at this stage I do not wish to give any status higher than that of a probing Amendment, is to determine in the broadest possible way what kind of responsibility peers should have to other persons or other bodies. We know that at present, as long as they satisfy the minimum attendance requirement, no obligation is placed upon them to attend for any particular time of the day, or even for any length of time during the day. There is no requirement that they need do more than just attend the House of Lords, be noticed by one or two officials, and immediately depart.
If that is so, we, as responsible for the payment of public money to peers, have

to make sure that there is some kind of responsibility attached to the position of voting peers. What we need to know and what we need to discuss is the kind of responsibility that we can inculcate in the peers as to the way in which they behave in the public service.
We all know, and in the past we have all been proud, of our reputation for pub-lice service, assuming that people were normally prepared to sacrifice themselves to a considerable extent in order to assist the public good. This has been a long and honourable tradition which has made our Parliamentary institutions among the finest in the world.
But when one creates a new constitution—and that is what we are doing—one must not assume that in a material age these attitudes will remain unaltered indefinitely. Once we offer the prospect not of public service but of reward, we must not assume that the attitude of considerations of duty, which were so important and, frequently, for which we must be grateful, of over-riding concern, will remain unaltered in the changing circumstances.
Because of this, we need to consider which kind of control, of checking, of minstering to the needs of the situation, we in the House of Commons should write into the provisions concerning attendance in the House of Lords. We are in the position of being the payers of peers for work which we consider needs to be done, and in our position of having to vote the moneys for the purpose we have the obligation as that which we have in every other kind of payment which we authorise. Not only do we have to make sure that the money goes to the people to whom we intend it to go; we have the more sophisticated requirement of having to make sure, having to convince ourselves in the most rigorous manner possible—be cause this has always been our attitude, and rightly so—that the money spent is spent on obtaining value and that, whether it be spent on any Ministry Vote or whether it be spent on payments to the House of Lords—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. This is an interesting speech and it deserves a bigger attendance. I therefore call a Count.

The Chairman: I cannot call a Count because we are in a suspended Sitting


and the new rules do not allow a count to be called after ten o'clock.

Mr. Sheldon: We have the same obligation in connection with the House of Lord-; that we have with moneys voted to any of the Departments of State. It is to make sure that the money is used for the purpose which Parliament intends. This is the oldest and the most important of the controls that we have devised and employed.
But we also have, increasingly as it has come about—and this applies more to the House of Lords—to demand that we obtain value for the money. If we are to vote many hundreds of thousands of pounds—or much more if we include the other facilities—we have to account to the electorate, to the people, for the way in which value for the money spent is obtained.
As you know, Mr. Irving, I should have preferred to have devised a different system. I should have liked it to be conducted with a far better investigation and far better methods of study, but we are discussing the method which we have and, rather than being able to compare this kind of Chamber with what it could be and the costs and so on, we have to think of the Chamber proposed in the Bill and the cost of operating that Chamber and the results which we shall obtain.
We must insist that, whatever the peers do and however they act, the arrangements concerning their attendance and the broad way in which they conduct their business are designed at least partly to prove to the country that the money being spent is being spent for value. If as the result of this legislation the House of Lords becomes a place which people use rather than serve, we shall have been shown to have produced a wrong kind of second House and one for which we ourselves would have the blame.
The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that the absence of peers through illness or because of Parliamentary duties is counted towards the one-third attendance required. In this category, too, is the situation concerning public business. The peer can absent himself on the grounds of public business and this also counts towards the one-third attendance.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Does this mean that the noble Lord, Lord Hill, who is receiving about £5,000 or £6,000 a year, could be absent all the time on public business and still receive his peer's salary?

Mr. Sheldon: If he were a voting peer, I am sure that could well come into the category of public business. Although I have selected a few interesting examples to draw to the attention of the Committee, the one mentioned by my hon. Friend is not one which I have considered, and I am grateful to him for introducing yet another kind of public business for which payment will be made.
I am not sure whether the Under-Secretary of State has made any examination of the days taken for public business, for Parliamentary business and for illness. I know that he has information as to the numbers who obtained leave of absence, but I am not sure that he has information on these three categories of absence for public business, Parliamentary business and illness. If he has not, then I may be able to be of assistance to him, because the survey which I carried out made a specific request for information concerning absences due to illness, public business and Parliamentary business.
The figures resulting from the survey need to be treated with some care since they represent only the recollections of peers, but this probably represents more information than the miserably inadequate information of the Under-Secretary of State on all these matters. This at least may be better than the information which he has, and is certainly different from that which he may have.
The survey shows that the absences of peers due to illness, public business or Parliamentary business averaged 22 per cent. We know that in the session 1967–68 there were 137 sitting days. If absences in these three categories amounted to 22 per cent., the one-third attendance requirement, which would have been 46 days, would be reduced by 22 per cent. So the 46 sitting days which would be the normal requirement for one-third attendance would be reduced to about 35 days and a member of the House of Lords could receive his Parliamentary salary of £2,000, or whatever it may be, for attending only on these 35 sitting days.
When one bears in mind that days of absence on public business might be more readily accepted by members of the House of Lords, the number might increase. The 35 does not represent the minimum; it represents the minimum attendance with the average reduction. The survey showed that there were people who had absented themselves more than 22 per cent. of the time. At the moment there is no attendance requirement and, if an attendance requirement were to be imposed, it would not be surprising if some peers might wish to absent themselves rather more. Faced with the minimum attendance rule, they could well decide to attend less frequently in the performance of their Parliamentary duties.

11.45 a.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I naturally accept the figures as correct. Am I to take it that for attendance on the 35 days, with the peer earning a minimum of £2,000 which has been suggested, a peer will get a salary representing on average around £20,000 per year—plus £6,000 a year if he has such a job?

The Chairman: Order. We are not discussing remuneration.

Mr. Sheldon: You are quite right, Mr. Irving, we are not discussing remuneration.

Mr. Lewis: It all comes in.

Mr. Sheldon: Obviously there will be resentment if the number of attendances is few and payment is made at the level which has been mooted. That would be a disgraceful situation. These considerations prompted Amendments earlier, and others which unfortunately have not been selected but which we hope to be able to discuss on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
Parliamentary duties are easy to analyse. We know broadly what we mean when we talk of Parliamentary duties, and I will not say that all of them are onerous. There will be a number of mid-term Parliamentary delegations and so on which some of us feel are, for peers, of rather doubtful value.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Whips' trips !

Mr. Sheldon: The term used by my hon. Friend is hard to better. Whatever they may be, they are not the important work of the House of Lords, yet it would be difficult to exclude that kind of operation. Some may be of more value than others, but they have been a part of Parliamentary life for so long that it would be wrong to attempt to exclude them.
The Amendment does not deal with illness. This is a matter which it is difficult to prove or disprove, and one must rely on the good faith of the people concerned. In passing, we must record that many people are in humbler positions in whom we do not place this degree of trust for sums of money much less important. To have one law for those who have means, giving them even greater means, and another for those who have less means is invidious. Nevertheless, there are problems in bringing suitable arrangements to bear on this point.
When we come to public business, the distinction becomes less rigid and we need to examine it more carefully. The distinction between some kinds of public and private business is not always easy to maintain.
I should like to give one or two examples. The Chairman of a joint stock bank, who might be a voting peer, for example, may have to go to the Middle East to get a sheik's bank account, or whatever it may be, and there may be some work attached to that. Is it public or private business if he visits him as a peer? How do we draw the distinction between one and the other? It may be a visit lasting several weeks and may include up to a dozen of the 35 days—

The Chairman: Order. I am having difficulty in relating the hon. Member's remarks to the Amendment, the terms of which clearly distinguish between public and private business. The purpose of the Amendment is to treat them differently in terms of notice.

Mr. Sheldon: The point to which I wish to address myself is the question of making sure that public business is delineated clearly from other kinds of business. When the peer gives notice in advance it can then be made quite clear what the nature of the public business is, so that it can be distinguished more readily from other kinds of business


for which payment would not be made because it did not count towards the minimum level of attendances.
Another example of the confusion which might operate is the position of a voting peer who was the vice-chancellor of a university and who organised some jamboree somewhere in the world. Is that public business?

Mr. Arthur Lewis: rose—

Mr. Sheldon: Is this public or private business? Who is to judge? If there are those who become almost professional at these matters and they are to get a sinecure of £2,000 a year, we must see that the people of this country—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is bringing in remuneration again.

Sir D. Glover: The hon. Gentleman refers to vice-chancellors and absence on public business. Would this include being detained in their rooms by rebellious students?

The Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will not pursue that point.

Mr. Sheldon: rose—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will my hon. Friend give way?

The Chairman: Order. I think we ought to have one intervention at a time. Mr. Sheldon.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I was asking my hon. Friend to give way.

The Chairman: Order. I asked the hon. Member not to follow one intervention with another.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friend has given way.

The Chairman: Order. I was suggesting that it would be much more orderly and accord with the general practice of the Committee if we do not have two interventions together. Mr. Sheldon.

Mr. Sheldon: I should not like to follow the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) in that example. However, it shows the very blurred distinction between what, on the one hand, is private business, and what, on the other, is public business—when he receives payment and when he does not.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for giving way. I want to be helpful to him and to the Chair. I wish to quote an example which he might perhaps develop. Let us take the position of the noble Lord, Lord Wigg. He can be attending Ascot or the Grand National and be away for a week. That is probably a public job. Will he be getting his public salary, perhaps earning money backing horses, and also getting his £2,000 a year? Would this be public or private business? This is an example. Perhaps my hon. Friend will consider it.

[Mr. BRYANT GODMAN IRVINE in the Chair]

Mr. Sheldon: I am intrigued at the ingenuity of my hon. Friend in discovering yet fresh examples showing the blurred distinction between private and public business.

Mr. John Lee: What about the position of the Chairman of the Betting Levy Board, who might be a peer and be attending—

Mr. Sheldon: That was the example given by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). Examples are coming forward so quickly. Perhaps I might give one last example: an industrialist concerning himself with mergers, perhaps in connection with the I.R.C. or some other body, and travelling all over the world in pursuit of business and pursuing other activities where the distinction between public and private business is not very fine. All this would not matter very much if there were no question of the minimum attendance figure or the salary being paid. But once we are committed to paying salaries to these people we have to exercise the usual rights of the House of Commons in making sure that the public are satisfied that for the money they pay out value is received.

Mr. John Ryan: My hon. Friend has raised many interesting examples which have considerably assisted the Committee about the distinction between private and public business. Will my hon. Friend consider the further example of a peer such as our noble Friend, Lord Brockway, who recently visited Nigeria as part of an attempt to secure a ceasefire? Would that be considered private or


public business, in the sense that he was briefed by the Commonwealth Office before he went, and would he lose his salary while there? Some people would argue that that was a worth-while form of activity, as have been many of his activities. For example, I accompanied him to Paris to meet the N.L.F. in peace talks. Perhaps we can discuss that on another Amendment, but I ask my hon. Friend to bear that example in mind.

Mr. Sheldon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing into the debate a further difficulty concerning the distinction between public and private business.
The Amendment seeks to ensure that the leave of the House to attend on public business must be given in advance only when the House is sitting. This is naturally related to attendances. It should not be a difficult undertaking to make sure that, even at very short notice, a message could be sent describing in the broadest possible detail the nature of the business.
The important point is that we should get value for money. All people, whoever they may be and however exalted their positions, should have some body, organisation or institution surveying the work which they do. That applies to Members of Parliament. If we attempt to swing the lead this information is known to our electorate and may determine our future. This is a strong penalty which, in the last resort, can be used.
The Prime Minister has his responsibilities to this House. He has responsibilities to all sorts of organisations. He is not able to do exactly as he wishes.
The chairman of a public company, an exalted position, has responsibilities to the shareholders. Although we may feel that these responsibilities are not as ardous as we should wish, nevertheless they are used again and again and they do draw the attention of the Chairman of any company, however large or small, to the fact that there is another body of people or another organisation to which he is in some way responsible.
When we create this voting peer we say that as long as he attends one-third of the sittings he has no further responsibility. The system has worked well in the past, but now that we are to give peers £2,000 a year, there is a need for some control over this money.

12 noon.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. I hope that the hon. Member will not refer to the question of remuneration.

Mr. Ridley: On a point of order. Mr. Godman Irvine, I submit that it would be impossible to debate this Clause properly without considering remuneration. The Clause was put into the Bill when remuneration was part of the bargain. Salary has been withdrawn from the bargain. The Clause, too, should therefore have been withdrawn. I do not see how we can have a meaningful discussion of the Clause without mentioning remuneration in passing.

The Temporary Chairman: I hope that the hon. Member appreciates that we are debating the Amendment and not the Clause.

Mr. C. Pannell: Further to that point of order. Mr. Godman Irvine, you cannot be conscious of what happened when you were not in the Chair, and you must rule as you see fit, but I have always understood that after an hon. Member has been warned, as my hon. Friend has been, about discussing remuneration he can use a figure in parenthesis to illustrate his argument. The argument cannot be conducted in vacuo. My hon. Friend is addressing himself to the question of responsibility, and responsibility arises out of the fact that public money is to be spent.
I understand the Chair saying that we must not go at length into how much money should be paid, or how it is arrived at, but the debate will be unintelligible —and nobody wants Parliament to be unintelligible—if my hon. Friend is not allowed to refer to remuneration, at least in parenthesis.

The Temporary Chairman: I was not present, but I understood that the Chairman had given a Ruling on this matter. I agree that remuneration can be referred to in parenthesis, but I hope that the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) will refer directly to the Amendment.

Sir D. Glover: On a point of order. Mr. Godman Irvine, how can we debate a Clause which lays down disciplines and conditions if there is no penalty for not complying with them? Remuneration


must be at the back of everybody's mind when discussing the Clause.

The Temporary Chairman: I hope that hon. Members will keep it at the back of their minds and will address their comments to the Amendment.

Mr. Orme: On a point of order. Mr. Godman Irvine, you say that we cannot discuss remuneration. We know that allowances are paid to peers. The Government brought forward a proposal for paying a salary, and then withdrew it, but there is no undertaking that it has been withdrawn for ever. I therefore submit that my hon. Friend has a right to refer to what may happen in future, because there is no categorical denial from the Government that they may not again alter their minds on this issue.

The Temporary Chairman: That does not arise on the Amendment. All that I am trying to do is to keep the Committee on the lines laid down by the Chairman when he was in the Chair.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order. When this question arose originally the Chairman said that pro vided we referred to what was in the White Paper we should be in order. The White Paper refers to a salary of £2,000, but that figure is not in the Bill—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. That was not a statement by the Chairman of Ways and Means on this Amendment.

Mr. Sheldon: I accept your Ruling. I am sure that there is nothing between us on this matter, in that the question of money arises because of the need to ensure that peers attend to their duties properly. If there were no payment, there would be no Amendment.
The important aspect of this is to ensure that when public business engagements are undertaken a distinction is made between public and private business and it is notified in advance. Before the House of Commons votes money it is given a chance to make sure that value will be obtained for that money. We know that £2,000 may be paid for a certain number of attendances in the other place. If that number were fixed at 20 or 15 genuine days, and all that

was necessary was for a peer to put in an appearance in the other place on his way to his office, or on the way back from his office on the way home, or to drop in for a drink, we should be failing in our duty if we did not realise that some awkward questions would be asked by those whose incomes were very much more restricted and who could not understand why money of this sort was being paid to people who treated the other place as a club.
We know that the mystique of service is not what it was in former days, and if this mystique of great service goes we must examine the position very carefully. The cost of the House of Lords will be much more than it used to be. Under the old system of paying daily allowances, allowing for an average of 230 attendances, the sum paid out was about £170,000 a year. Paying a salary of £2,000 a year will almost treble that figure to about £460,000 a year. I therefore submit that if we spend so much more on salaries for peers we must make sure, not only that we are getting value for money, but that what we are doing is seen to be right.

Mr. John Lee: The Amendment deals with the notifying in advance of intended absence. If a peer gives notice of what he genuinely believes is absence on public business, and it later transpires that it is not public business, will the matter be reported to the Public Accounts Committee? Does my hon. Friend envisage a kind of surcharge, or a withdrawal of salary, related to the unauthorised absence?

Mr. Sheldon: Speaking as a member of the Public Accounts Committee in the presence of the Chairman of that Committee, I hesitate to commit myself at this stage.

Sir D. Glover: I think that the hon. Gentleman and the distinguished Chairman of the P.A.C. would want to be paid £2,000 a year if this were referred to us.

Mr. Sheldon: I am sure that the point has been well taken.
The important aspect of the Amendment is the necessity for some kind of supervision, just as there is supervision over all people who hold positions of importance. These peers are to get what for many people is a full-time salary, but


they are not to be held accountable in any way, except on the basis of a minimum attendance, which can be reduced if "public business" is widely interpreted. If we are to have a Report stage —and J hope that we shall have one— I expect the Government to try to find some way of making sure that there is some form of supervision which is acceptable to the House of Lords and also acceptable to this House which will be responsible for paying these considerable sums of money.
There will be a fair number of younger voting peers. Those younger voting peers, presumably, initially will be very full of enthusiasm. Presumably that is one of the reasons why they would be selected. Throughout one's life there are times when for some reason or other one is particularly busy. One has obligations and commitments which are perhaps greater than one would have chosen but which have been thrust upon one or have been accepted rather too readily in a spirit of over-great enthusiasm. The remedies for us are to work perhaps at an unwise speed and at a level of intensity rather greater than that at which we wish to work.
The voting peer could readily dispense with certain of the activities for which he was being paid £2,000 a year. If he had attended 60 per cent., he could run that down to 33 per cent., and if he found the burden too much he could readily make use of the provision about public business and find excuses to be away from the House of Lords, or use it as a club on the way home in the evening.

Mr. Russell Kerr: The old wangle.

Mr. Sheldon: That is one description, but there is another.

Mr. Ryan: If one accepts that it is the easiest thing in the world to justify one's behaviour to oneself, could not my hon. Friend envisage a situation in which these peers might identify themselves with charitable organisations in great numbers? We have not considered whether working for a charitable organisation would be defined as public business. Would it be possible for the peer to spend very little time on this business but to justify to himself that it is public business?

Mr. Sheldon: My hon. Friend has a point there. In periods of very great stress for the peer concerned there will be a temptation to extend the public business side of his activities so as to reduce his attendances. He might not regard that as a wangle. I accept that many who will find themselves peers if this wretched measure gets on to the Statute Book will be men of some distinction. I hesitate to think that there would be more than a very few who would undertake the kind of wangle referred to, but many, faced with the difficulty of keeping up attendances of one-third because of extreme commitments, might resort to using the public business provision to reduce their attendances further because the penalty for not doing so would be to be put out of the House for life. That is an appalling penalty for a man of 40 or 50 who is interested in Parliament and who perhaps for one year finds himself in the dilemma whether to plead public business when it is not public business or to find himself disfranchised from the House of Lords and no longer a voting peer. That is an agonising decision for the peer concerned.
12.15 p.m.
That is a further illustration of some of the shoddy thinking behind the Bill. It has not been properly thought out. Although many of these peers will attend very well, the results of the survey which I outlined yesterday seem to suggest that nevertheless there is a need for flexibility. We do not attend in this place in the same proportion year in and year out. There are times when we have great difficulties of one kind and another and there are times when we are able, due to good fortune and everything going well, to be heavily engaged in this place. There are times when we see faces here that we have not seen for a very long time and when we find some hon. Members again taking their places day after day. We assume that that will not happen in another place, but if it happens and there are periods when these peers do not attend, they may resort to the temptation of the wangle.

Mr. Ridley: Would the hon. Member agree that there are some faces which appear here when it would be to the benefit of the House if they did not appear quite so often?

Mr. Sheldon: I accept that.

Mr. Powell: The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) referred to a peer whose attendance requirement would not be fulfilled as thereby forfeiting his voting membership for life. I wonder whether he is quite correct. I wonder whether it would not be for the remainder of that Parliament that he would suffer forfeiture. I agree with the general argument which the hon. Member is evolving, but perhaps on consideration, after looking at Clause 3 and at subsections (1) and (4), he would find that he is mistaken.

The Temporary Chairman: I hope that the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) will not look at Clause 3 but will relate his argument strictly to the Amendment.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On a point of order. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), possibly unintentionally, may have misled the Committee on this complicated Bill. Surely it is in order for my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) to draw attention to other provisions of the Bill to indicate that the hon. Member may have inadvertently misled the Committee? Otherwise intelligent consideration of this Bill in Committee—I remind you, Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine, that we are in Committee—becomes impossible.

The Temporary Chairman: I hope that the hon. Member will relate his argument strictly to the Amendment.

Mr. Sheldon: Thank you, Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine. I certainly intend to relate all my comments to the Amendment. The voting peer whose attendance record falls below that which he would normally wish to maintain will be placed in great difficulty through being excluded from some important matters which may be before the House of Lords.
A most important aspect of this matter deals with responsibilities and to whom they should be directed. We are creating a body which will be in receipt of moneys amounting to half-a-million pounds a year and we are stating that there should be no responsibility to anyone on any matter. This has gone too far. We need to make sure that some control of that

money, by some means not yet properly discussed, is considered by the Government and brought before the Committee.

Sir D. Glover: The whole Committee is greatly indebted to the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), whose every speech on the Bill increases his stature in the House of Commons. Before our deliberations on the Bill are concluded, the hon. Gentleman will be one of the most experienced Parliamentarians of all time. If the hon. Gentleman continues in this way, by the time the Bill becomes law, if ever, he will be far too old to qualify for membership of the other place.
Many of the things the hon. Gentleman has said highlight even more clearly the absurdity of the Bill. I am not convinced that the hon. Gentleman's proposal would be wise, if the Lords is to work with reasonable efficiency, to have any dignity, or to be any parallel with the House of Commons. On the question of public service, for instance, will the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, when he is watching the Gold Cup at Cheltenham tomorrow, be absent on public business, or on private business? The hon. Gentleman, perhaps because he did not wish to weary the Committee, did not go at sufficient length into the question of who is to decide. Is there to be a committee of the House of Lords which will solemnly set out to decide whether the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, is entitled to go to Cheltenham?

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Has my hon. Friend never heard of the old system of exeats?

Sir D. Glover: I do not know anything about exeats. Most of these peers will be getting exits, not exeats. If a committee were to decide afterwards that the noble Lord was not absent on public business, would that disqualify him for the rest of that Parliament? Would the noble Lord have to get approval before he went, or afterwards? How do the Government visualise this system working in the reformed Chamber?
It cannot and will not work. The whole basis of the Clause of putting conditions on the peerage will turn the Lords into a Chamber that will not work. Remuneration has been much discussed.


It has been said that most of those who will be considered for these positions are men of considerable public stature, nor necessarily all wealthy. Many of them are already reasonably well-breeched. I do not think that they will accept these conditions. People will not volunteer for these positions. The Government may get it to work for the present House, after they have carefully gone into the matter on the mystical figure of 230. The Government have probably found that there are so many hereditary Tory peers and so many Tory peers of first creation; they have probably sounded them out and decided that, when and if the Bill ever becomes law, it will work. It probably would work for the first Session. In this important constitutional Bill we are trying to devise a system for a second Chamber which will exist, not for one Parliament, but perhaps for 50 or 100 years before it is amended. It will not work. Those already in the swim may continue, but once they have run out of steam others will not accept these conditions. The hon. Gentleman spoke about peers clocking in. If there is to be an attendance, there will have to be some form of clocking in.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that subsection (3) deals with the retrospective granting of permission to leave in two cases where a person could not have foreseen that he would be absent? The first is illness. The second is when he is called away suddenly on public business. It does not deal with anything beyond that. Permission would be given beforehand in other circumstances.

Sir D. Glover: But it does not say so.

Mr. Powell: It is not even in the Preamble.

Sir D. Glover: If it is not in the Preamble, it cannot be of great weight. If there are to be these conditions, a day must be defined. Is it to be two hours, or the length of one speech? A peer might be called away on urgent public business after he had already spent an hour in the House. Would he qualify in those circumstances for a day's attendance? He might merely have called to collect his mail. Must a peer be there for lunch? Must he dine in, as they do at the Inns of Court? Must he take so many dinners a year before he qualifies?

Mr. Ridley: Is my hon. Friend aware that at present all that has to happen is that a noble Lord has to be seen by the Clerk and his name is entered in the bock? A peer does not even have to stay in another place long enough to drink a gin and tonic to qualify for a whole day's attendance. Presumably the same system will apply when the Bill becomes law.

Sir D. Glover: I am grateful for that intervention. That is what happens today when there is only an attendance allowance. Implicit in all our deliberations is the fact that there is to be remuneration. I do not think that what happens now has a cat in hell's chance of being allowed to continue. There would be far too much opposition to paying people who are not responsible to the electorate a firm salary with no conditions. Once conditions are laid down, they will have to be fairly onerous. Because the conditions will have to be fairly onerous, eventually the whole Bill, if it became law, would crumble into dust, because it would not work.
The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne spoke with great intelligence about the narrow gap between public and private occupations. I do not think that the case he cited of a banker going to the Middle East to open an account would qualify as public service. I will cite a much more valid case. If the party in opposition has a young peer, perhaps aged 35, who it thinks will be Ministerial material when it gets to power, and if that young peer out of his own money pays for a trip round the world to investigate problems in Vietnam, Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, Mauritius, and even Anguilla, is that public service?
12.30 p.m.
I presume that, if there were a committee sitting on the matter, it might view such a question with kindness and be inclined to say that it was public service, but one of its members might well warn that one should be careful about it— "This noble Lord has some mining interests in Australia. When he goes to Australia, he will look after his mining interests, and he may be there for a month looking after them. We ought not to certify that it is public service".
The noble Lord is then absent from the House, he does not do his 33⅓ per cent.


of attendances, and he is disqualified from voting, probably only for that Parliament, but disqualified none the less. It would not be easy for the leader of his party to put things right in the next Parliament unless the party won a great victory and came in with more members in this House. His leader would then be able to add his name to the list of voting peers because the party was qualified for another half-dozen, but not otherwise.
Would that be a sensible way of building up an informed peerage, a sensible way of building up a body which, despite the criticisms, is widely respected not for its composition and hereditary basis but for the intelligence and wisdom collected within its walls which is expressed in its debates?
I take another example. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Butler has qualified this year or in the particular year in question, 1967–68, which seems to be the basis of all wisdom. On the other hand, perhaps not; the year 1967–68 may have been a time when he was not a particularly good attender. On a statistical basis, he would not be likely to become a voting peer. As the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said, attendances in political life vary enormously.
There is something slightly indecent— I repeat the word "indecent" to the Under-Secretary of State, and I am sorry that he is the only Minister present—that we should be debating sanctions for attendance in another place at a time of day when we are not able to call a Count to find out how many Members of the House of Commons are sufficiently interested in the debate even to be on the premises. I doubt that we should have found 40 Members present if the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) had been able to call a Count. Yet we have the impertinence and arrogance to debate a Bill which would put sanctions, clocking-in and the rest on their Lordships in another place.
I accept that we in this House are responsible to our constituents; they can put a good discipline on Members of Parliament, though I am reminded of a story about a distinguished Member of this House who, at the beginning of every Session, gave his secretary some Questions for Written Answer and then

went off to the South of France. For many years, his constituents thought that he was an assiduous and able Member, always "on the ball", and asking Questions in the House. It does not necessarily follow that Members' attendances are as reliable as might appear. However, there is a discipline which our electors exert upon us.
That discipline does not apply in the other place. So far, without pay but with an attendance allowance, there have been enough public-spirited people in the other place to produce the mystical figure of 230. Without discipline, without sanctions, the unreconstituted House of Lords with its hereditary principle and 400 Members not attending, is producing day by day and week by week the attendance which the Government want to produce under the Bill. The right way, therefore, is not to do what the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne suggested, instituting a sort of factory clocking-in system, but to trust the peers in the same way as they have been trusted for many years.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: In his study of the matter has my hon. Friend established how many Member of the other place are members of the boards of nationalised industries and whether attendance at a board meeting would qualify as public service under the Clause?

Sir D. Glover: My hon. Friend has made a valuable interjection. That also is a question which will exercise the leaders of the political parties. I assume that the noble Lords, Lord Melchett and Lord Robens, for example, will not be considered as voting peers because their leaders will say not that they are not valuable peers but that they cannot attend sufficiently often to vote.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: They might be cross-benchers.

Sir D. Glover: That is another interesting point. Because of the difficulties, a tradition might develop that Lord Melchett and Lord Robens, for example, could become part of the so-called cross-bench or "C.B." peers. But the Members of the House of Commons would take a good deal of convincing that they had suddenly become men without political views. I think it only too likely that


the leaders of the political parties will strain their consciences to the point of appointing peers who are members of the boards of nationalised industries in the quota of cross-bench peers, and that will show how "phoney" the cross-bench peerage will become in a short time.

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is breaking some important ground on the Amendment. I gather that the conclusion to which he is coming is that in their Lordships House there ought to be a register of public interests, that just as in this House we are drawing towards a register of private interests of Members of Parliament, so in the House of Lords there should be a register of public interests so that peers may declare in advance the business on which they would claim exemption from the attendance record, so that everyone would know what was fair and what was not when first setting down his list of interests.

Sir D. Glover: ; That is, perhaps, one of the most important points raised during the debate this morning.
I wish to make my position clear. I do not want the Bill to become law. The Bill will make the other place worse than it is. There are three solutions. The other place could be scrapped, left as it is, or turned into an elective Chamber. The Bill does none of those things. It is a nonsense, and if it produces a Chamber that will not work it may be necessary to have a register such as my hon. Friend suggests. But it would be a retrograde step, showing lack of interest and trust in the noble Lords, and putting them into the atmosphere of a schoolroom, which would not help their independence. But if that is the sort of Chamber that will exist, many of these disciplines may become part of the machinery of trying to make another place work.

Mr. Hastings: This is a substantial point. My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) suggested that a register of public interests might be necessary under the Amendment in rather the same way as it is suggested we should have registers of our interests outside this place. But, even if it were a good idea, it would be impossible under the Bill as it stands, because we do not know what the Government

consider a public interest to be. We should first have to have a comprehensive list of what the Government consider them to be before we could have any list of the public interests of peers.

Sir D. Glover: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. I partially raised this earlier in my speech when I asked who decided what a public interest was. Is there to be a permanent Select Committee in the House of Lords to which a noble Lord will say, "I have got this job, this appointment. Is it a public interest? If I go to Cheltenham, will it be allowed?" I am appalled by the mental picture of that. How would it work? Will the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, go to the House of Lords and order that the Committee should sit immediately because he wants to go to Cheltenham, or does he have to write in a month before? Who will decide—the Prime Minister, or a group of Privy Councillors? Somebody will have to settle these matters. The general impression in the Committee is that this will not work.
I do not want to mislead the Committee. I think that the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said that the Amendment was a probing Amendment. We should be grateful to him for moving it, and for his very able speech. But if he pressed it to a Division I do not think that I would go into the Lobby with him at this stage. He is trying to make conditions that would make another place even less workable than it would be under the present proposals, if that is possible.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that a sum of money, whether £2,000 or any other amount, should be paid to their prospective Lordships irrespective of their performance? Does he say that there should be no criterion that we could apply to their performance in another place?

Sir D. Glover: That is a very valid question. I would say, "Yes", and I would trust the noble Lords to justify the payment, although I admit that a powerful speech could be made against that.

Mr. Kerr: How can the hon. Gentleman justify that, not only to the Committee but to the public at large, since we are in effect responsible for their money?

12.45 p.m.

Sir D. Glover: I accept that criticism. This question does not arise on the Amendment, and we shall deal with it at greater length later. Without getting too far out of order, I would say, if asked for a snap decision, that I would trust the noble Lords. The hon. Gentleman and I could argue all night on the rights and wrongs of this, and I accept that when payment is made to a non-elective Chamber there is a powerful argument for having disciplines to ensure that it is deserved.
I gave the hon. Gentleman a snap judgment, but I am prepared to be convinced. I am not dogmatic about it because I see that there is a real danger. Judging by the hon. Gentleman's speech, I think that he probably will not press the Amendment to a Division, but if he did I probably would not vote for it at this stage. However, he has done the Committee a great service in raising the whole problem of the working of this crazy scheme, if it ever gets on the Statute Book and some poor benighted people in another place have to try to make it work. It will be a disastrous failure. The present House of Lords, despite all its anomalies, is held in great affection by the public, and there is tremendous respect for it in the nation. It would be ruined by the Bill and ruined to no advantage to the nation.

Mr. John Lee: I share with the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), many misgivings about the mechanics of the Amendment. I am not entirely convinced that it will help us get very far, but I join with the hon. Gentleman in expressing the Committee's gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), for raising the matter. It is one of the characteristics of the long proceedings on the Bill that what seem to be quite small technical Amendments give rise to major matters and to problems of constitutional importance which might not otherwise have been drawn to hon. Members' attention.
The Amendment has certain advantages over the wording of the Bill. The Clause talks about leave of absence being given before, during or after the period for which it was given. That is an extraordinarily lax suggestion. How

casual this all is? We are dealing not only with public money but with public resources—the use of the facilities of the second Chamber and the amenities attached to it, and with a Member seeking to do something which, by the very nature of things, is supposed to be exceptional. For the first time in history, the criterion of membership of the other place will include the requirement of presence in the Chamber, or at least within the Palace of Westminster, whereas it has been the practice for many years that the great majority of Members of the other House were engaged elsewhere and put in only an occasional appearance. For the first time, we are giving them permission to be away, subject to the possibility of certain sanctions if they do not conform to requirements to be laid down, yet we make this provision the subject of the most casual and loose arrangement.
It is not clear from the Bill how long after the period permission can be given. I shall have to criticise the Amendment itself at some length later. Whilst it seeks to procure approval in advance, it does not deal with the question of how far in advance this may be required. But it is far more satisfactory than having a Member taking himself off on something which he presumes to be public business, but which may turn out not to have been so, and then later on making an application.
The words at the end of subsection (3) are:
or after the end of the Session to which it relates.
How long after? What will the position be under the Bill if a peer seeks permission at the end of the final Session of Parliament? Would permission be forthcoming? Who would give it even if it were after the Proclamation of the Dissolution of Parliament at the end of the final Session? It is not clear. For that reason there is obviously a great deal to be said for making it obligatory upon the Member who seeks to be absent that he should make his application in advance of the time to which the application applies.
I regret that the Amendment does not make it entirely clear that a Member of the other place should seek permission in advance in any event, with the possible exception of certain cases where


there may be an extraordinary emergency session, or something of that kind. If a peer seeks to go on public business and does not seek permission in advance, who is to say that he ought to be at risk and that he may be sanctioned if he finds himself doing something of which the House does not approve?
Let me draw an analogy. There have been occasions—there have not been many recently—when Members of this House have fallen foul of the technicalities of the House of Commons disqualification provisions by the holding of certain offices of profit under the Crown. Before seeking election to this House they had been required to say that they were not disqualified. Yet instances have occurred when Members, quite bona fide, have allowed their names to go forward as validly nominated candidates for election to this House and when it has subsequently transpired that they were not freed of their disqualifying offices.
Members of rent tribunals provide one example. That House has had to deal with the question of the validity of their election and in every case indemnification Bills have been forthcoming. The House always deals kindly and leniently with any Member who, bona fide, makes a mistake as to his qualifications.
I use that argument by way of analogy, and I would have said that if a Member of the other place bona fide went on a trip which he believed to be a business trip and sought permission for it, and if it turned out that although it could reasonably be imagined that it was on public business it was really of a private character, because it came in one of the border-line categories to which reference has been made, I am sure that the situation could be put right y way of an indemnification Bill.
But that is quite different from saying, "It does not matter if you do this. Do not bother to apply now. You can apply during or after the Session, when the whole matter will be over." That is a far-too casual approach to public business. For that reason I submit that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne was right to bring forward the Amendment seeking to improve the situation.

Mr. R. B. Cant: My hon. Friend could have

reminded the House of the vivid contrast that exists between the essentially casual approach to the problem of attendance in relation to remuneration in the case of the House of Parliament and the very strict rules and regulations laid down for the gift of financial loss allowances to local councillors who, in order to get their £2 financial loss allowance, must attend for not a minute less than four hours or, if they want a day's financial loss, not a minute less than 8 hours—or whatever the time may be. If they go to a conference their financial loss is related not to the time when they leave home and get back home but to the time at which their train leaves and the time at which it gets back into their home town or city.
I do not suggest that this creates the sort of scene that might exist at a death bed, when the recipients of gifts inter vivos are trying to keep alive an old man so that they do not forfeit them, but it does produce a situation in local government—

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. Interventions must be brief.

Mr. Lee: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) for his analogy, which is an apt one. It is one of the curiosities of public life that we seem to demand of our local authorities a much more rigid standard of probity in financial matters than we demand in respect of matters that come within the purview of members of this House or the other House. I do not know whether my hon. Friend was present during the earlier part of the debate, but we have already gone over some of the ground covered by the question of the extent to which we may be satisfied that a man is about public business, and the way in which the phrase "public business" is to be defined, and what is a bona fide attendance. It is extremely difficult to know, because it has never been laid down. It has always been accepted that people deal with these matters honestly and honourably. The Committee will agree that they do so, on the whole.
I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Ormskirk when he says that we like to leave these matters to trust. In public affairs there must always be a


considerable element of trust. No organisation of any size or calibre could be expected to function properly without a large measure of trust. Nevertheless it is clear for many reasons—not least from the way in which so much outside criticism of this House and Parliament in general has accumulated in recent years —that we have to be rather more strict about our own affairs and the affairs of the other place than we have been hitherto, in order to parry some of the criticisms levelled against us.
Although the Amendment lays down that the application should be made in advance in most cases it does not make it clear how far in advance it should be made. If an application is made only a matter of hours before the time limit, those to whom the application is made will be in some difficulty about investigation.
Again, what is the test of reasonableness? We do not know. It will depend largely on the type of business being undertaken. If it is in the form of a casual visit within this country which may take a Member of the other place away for a matter of hours, it may be that a few hours' notice would be adequate. Not many people would quarrel with that. But the business might involve visits abroad where what is indisputably public business is intermingled with indisputably private business—quite proper business— that the peer is proposing to undertake, and where there is also a shaded area in respect of which the work that he is doing may easily be construed either as public or private, and when only considerable investigation could satisfy an objective observer as to the category in which it should be placed. How far in advance should the application be made then? The Amendment does not make it clear. However much we are in my hon. Friend's debt, we cannot accept his Amendment without due examination and criticism of those parts which are not as precise as they should be.
Before the Committee can accept the Amendment, therefore, we must consider at what time in advance of the operative period the application should be made. We should also find out who is to do the investigating. Has the application to be made to the Lord Chancellor, or to the Lord Chancellor's office,

or is it to be referred to some auditors? In the latter case, who is to appoint the auditors? The Amendment is defective in clarity there. It says that the application is to be made in advance, but does not clearly state who is to be the examining authority. We must not be left in doubt about that.
1.0 p.m.
Again, it is germane to ask who is to do the investigating when the House is not sitting and a lot of those staff to whom reference might be made may not be available. Who will investigate applications during the Summer Recess, and satisfy the House that the application is bona fide in respect of leave of absence, and should be granted? One must bear in mind that if it is held that the business concerned is not public business, that the person concerned has not acted reasonably or has not fulfilled his proper quota of attendances the penalty could be severe. But, quite apart from any financial penalty it will be a matter of great moment if, as a result of his conduct, that person finds himself debarred for a long or a short period from active participation in the work of Parliament. There is no comparable penalty that I know that is applicable to this House.
What happens if, after investigation has been completed, it transpires that the authority concerned is not satisfied that the application was not proper? To whom is notification of that fact to be made? Is the channel of notification to be the House, or the Lord Chancellor, or an official notifying privately in writing? The Amendment does not make it clear whether or not the application should be made in writing, but I assume that it will be.
The definition of public duties presents the most vexed problem of all. We are in some doubt about what is covered by the phrase "public business". A peer may be a shareholder in a public company such as B.P. which is, itself, Government-controlled. B.P. is not regarded, in colloquial terms, at any rate, as a nationalised industry, but it is an industry over which the Government, if they choose to exercise their authority—and some would say that, unfortunately, they do not often choose to do that—have an effective measure of control.
If a peer wants to go abroad to investigate some of the activities of B.P.—going


not as a Government-appointed director, because that would obviously put him on the public side of the line, but as a shareholder—can it be said that his activities are merely those of a private citizen who has invested in an organisation in which the Government also have invested, though on a somewhat larger scale? Or is it reasonable to say that he is then performing a public service by carrying out a scrutiny of the activities of an organisation in which the Government— and, at one stage removed, the taxpayers —have a genuine interest? We do not know.

[Mr. Sydney Irving in the Chair.]

Even if we were to adopt the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Circencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and have a register of interests, what would we include? Is the instance I have given to be regarded as a public interest? Again, we do not know. Whether or not the Amendment is accepted, a peer might find himself in the greatest possible embarrassment merely because we do not know what the public interest is.

In addition to any penalty imposed by way of debarring a peer from operating as a member of his House because, for one reason or another, his application is either improper or has been rejected, are we to threaten him also with the pos sibility of having to refund his emoluments, or parts of his emoluments—

The Chairman: Order. Emoluments are not in the Bill. The hon. Member speaks out of order in referring to them.

Mr. Lee: With respect, Mr. Irving my remark relates to the Amendment to the extent of suggesting that it is relevant to whether or not the matter should be investigated in advance. Perhaps I may keep myself within the bounds of order if I say that one advantage in the Amendment, in addition to the advantages that have already been enumerated, is that if a Member of the other House were ever to find his remuneration or part of it at risk as a result of undertaking business which turned out not to be public, the more the matter could be investigated in advance the more likely a firm "yea" or "nay" could be given. Further, if application was made a reasonable time in advance and after prolonged

investigation the application was not considered reasonable, it would be a reason able answer for the person to say that he had made a bona fide application—

Mr. Powell: One appreciates the difficulty of referring to the possible financial consequences of a refusal, after the event, by the House to give the necessary leave of absence, but I take it that the hon. Gentleman has considered that since, under the terms of the Clause, leave can be given in a subsequent Session, the person concerned might actually in that subsequent Session have cast a vote, on which a decision might have turned, but is then found not to have been qualified to vote at the time he did vote. That provision is in the Bill.

Mr. Lee: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. That adds still further to the curiosities that this situation provides. I take the argument a stage further: what is to be the position if a decision in another place is taken by one vote and it turns out that one of those on the majority side had acted in a way in which he should not have acted and which at any rate raised the possibility of his vote being a nullity? What would happen to the decision of the other place?
That is another reason why I believe that this Amendment has its limitations, but I hope that the Under-Secretary, when he ultimately replies to the debate, will at least give an undertaking that he will consider something of its kind. Clearly the Bill's wording as it stands is inadequate. It is too lax and too casual by far for matters of this kind. At the same time, I do concede that the wording of the Amendment may be insufficiently precise to be accepted in its entirety.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: The effect of the Amendment would be to prevent the House of Peers from giving leave of absence retrospectively when it was sought on account of public business. Subsection (2) defines the attendance requirements in any Session as attendance
at the sittings of the House (or sittings of Committees of the House) on a number of days equal to not less than one-third of the total number of days on which the House meets during the Session (other than … for judicial business …
From the calculation of the total number of days sat during each Session there will be deducted under subsection (2)(b) any


period during which a peer is absent, with the leave of the House, on account of ill health, or on Parliamentary or other public business.
The expression "public business" is not defined in the Bill and its interpretation would therefore have to be left to the House itself. It could cover periods of absence such as service as a chairman or member of a Royal Commission or Departmental Committee. Some difficult cases may arise which the House would have to judge on their merits, for example, absence at the Council of Europe, the United Nations Assembly, or an inquiry not directly sponsored by the Government. But no doubt there would develop suitable rules of practice in due course.
It has been put to us by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) that such a procedure would be extremely difficult to administer. The Committee should appreciate that the matter could be decided by the other place as a whole, but that in practice it is likely that this function would be delegated to a small Committee, similar to the Leave of Absence Committee which already exists. "Public business" would, therefore, be interpreted by the House or by this small Committee.

Mr. Hastings: This matter has formed the subject of a large part of our debate. As this is a Government Bill, what guidance is to be given to this Committee of another place by the Government as to the definition of public duty?

Mr. Morgan: I will deal with that. I am sure that hon. Members will accept that the House of Peers would properly be able to discharge this function either meeting as a whole, or through this small Committee.
1.15 p.m.
No better alternatives have been suggested by anyone. It is absurd to suggest that this arrangement would be entirely lax, or that leave should not be given retrospectively. Surely the House of Peers can be allowed to apply its own control in this matter. I am sure that hon. Members accept that it is an honourable House and that it would deal with genuine cases—and they are what the Bill involves—of leave sought for public business with a combination of sympathy and firmness.

Mr. Powell: The definition of "public business" has been a main point in the debate. The hon. Gentleman has indicated that in his view Royal Commissions and perhaps Departmental Committees would be included. Would he say whether in his opinion service on public boards, for example, would be included in the definition of "public business", or is that to be left unknown until it comes to be decided by some Committee of another place not yet existing? While he is doing that, would he also say whether in the advice which he receives the term "other" in the phrase "other business" is to be interpreted under the rule of ejusdem generis as meaning similar to Parliamentary?

Mr. Morgan: I do not think that the ejusdem generis rule would operate of necessity, or that "other" need of necessity mean business analogous to Parliamentary business. However, if there is a debate on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, it might be better for hon. Members then to be advised by one of the Law Officers. I think that it is obvious that it is not governed by the word "other" in that respect.
The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) mentioned the membership of public bodies. This is a matter for the other House to consider. About 20 minutes ago, I made an interjection in the speech of the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) when I said that the purpose of subsection (3) was to deal with cases in which a member of the other place had suffered a sudden illness, or had suddenly and without previous notice been called away on urgent public business. I have reflected upon that and although that is the purpose of the provision, I think that we should direct our minds to the wording of the subsection:
Leave of absence for the purposes of paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of this section may be given either before, during or after the period for which it is given, and either before or after the end of the Session to which it relates.
Paragraph (b) relates to Parliamentary or other public business and it would be wrong for me to seek to put any restrictive gloss upon the interpretation of those words.


Under subsection (3), leave of absence may be given before, during or after the period for which it was sought and before or after the end of the Session to which it refers. This provision has been included with the intention that it should allow not only for sudden illness, but also for circumstances in which a peer might go abroad on Government business at short notice, for example, the visit of Lord Hunt to Biafra.
The need to apply for leave of absence might have been overlooked, but a voting peer who was absent from the House for such reasons should not be penalised merely because of his failure to make a formal application in advance. I respectfully put it to the House that that is all that this Amendment refers to, and that it is to that narrow issue that the Committee should direct its mind. I invite the Committee, for the reasons which I have put forward, to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Hastings: rose—

The Chairman: Mr. Hastings.

Mr. Hastings: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, may I ask him to apply himself to the important constitutional point raised by my right hon. Friend: if a voting peer, for any one of the reasons which the Minister and others in the debate have described, is disqualified in a subsequent Session, could not this result in a vote, or perhaps more than one vote, of this peer being entirely invalid?
To develop this point one stage further, may it not be that the conclusion reached by another place would equally be in question as a result—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a rather long intervention.

Mr. Hastings: Mr. Irving, I respect fully submit—

The Chairman: Order. I am not being addressed on a point of order at the moment.

Mr. Powell: With respect, Mr. Irving, I distinctly heard you call my hon. Friend. I recognise that he prefaced his remarks with the expression, "Before the hon. Gentleman sits down", but the

House is in Committee and I would submit to you that an hon. Member who is called by you and speaks, irrespective of the phraseology which he may use at the beginning of his remarks, has the Floor in Committee.

The Chairman: I must make it clear to the right hon. Gentleman that I called the hon. Member, on the Minister sitting down, for an intervention and not to make a speech. Unless the right hon. Gentleman has a further point of order, I should like to proceed.

Mr. Powell: On a point of order. I put to you the question whether it is within the power of the Chair in Committee to call an hon. Member conditionally and only to intervene, even after the previous speaker has resumed his seat?

The Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is seeking to pursue a point of order. It is done quite frequently.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Further to that point of order. Mr. Irving, as I understood it—

The Chairman: I hope that the Minister will not pursue the point of order which I have ruled not to be relevant to the debate.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I wish only to explain that I was in the act of resuming my seat when the hon. Gentleman asked me to give way.

The Chairman: Order. I cannot allow anyone to debate a point of order.

Mr. Hastings: Further to that point of order—

The Chairman: Order. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to speak. I have disposed of the point of order. I have ruled, and the hon. Gentleman must submit.

Mr. Hastings: rose—

The Chairman: I will allow the hon. Gentleman to complete his intervention. I hope that he will be brief.

Mr. Hastings: If I may return to the matter, it seems to me to be as potentially important to the Committee as anything that has been debated on the Amendment, or perhaps anything that has been discussed since the beginning of our debate


yesterday. It raises the possibility of a conclusion of a vote in the House of Lords at some future date being completely invalidated post facto. What sort of position will Parliament be in—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to raise a debate on an intervention. He must conclude it.

Mr. Hastings: Surely it is possible under the provisions of the Bill for a voting peer to be disqualified in a Session of Parliament subsequent to the Session in which he voted perhaps once, twice or thrice, with the result that the decision of the other place will be invalidated. Will the Minister please apply himself to that possibility before he sits down?

Mr. Elystan Morgan: This is a complicated question on which I should not like to give a definite opinion without carefully studying the Rules of Order of the other House, but perhaps I could put this matter to the hon. Gentleman: this situation in theory could occur under the House of Commons Disqualification Act

1957, republished this year. This is a situation which could already exist in relation to the House of Commons, in that a person would be a Member up to the moment that it had been decided judicially that he was disqualified from taking his seat.

On the more general question, it is a matter which often occurs in commercial circles. It is known in company law as the rule in Royal British Bank v. Turquand, and the fact that a person casts a vote which might affect the issue but is later found to be disqualified from so acting, does not affect the vires of the decision which has been effectively taken.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Silkin): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Silkin) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 151, Noes 71.

Division No. 129.]
AYES
[1.26 p.m.


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Forrester, John
MacColl, James


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fowler, Gerry
Macdonald, A. H.


Bence, Cyril
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Freeson, Reginald
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Binns, John
Gardner, Tony
Maclennan, Robert


Blackburn, F.
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Boston, Terence
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Boyden, James
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Brooks, Edwin
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Marks, Kenneth


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Hamling, William
Mayhew, Christopher


Buchan, Norman
Hannan, William
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Harper, Joseph
Millan, Bruce


Cant, R. B.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Carmichael, Neil
Haseldine, Norman
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hazell, Bert
Moonman, Eric


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Henig, Stanley
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Coe, Denis
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Coleman, Donald
Hilton, W. S.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Concannon, J. D.
Hooley, Frank
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Moyle, Richard


Dalyell, Tam
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Murray, Albert


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Neal, Harold


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hoy, James
Oswald, Thomas


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hunter, Adam
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Dell, Edmund
Janner, Sir Barnett
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Dempsey, James
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Dobson, Ray
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Doig, Peter
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Pentland, Norman


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Kelley, Richard
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Eadie, Alex
Lawson, George
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Ledger, Ron
Price, William (Rugby)


Ellis, John
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Probert, Arthur


Ennals, David
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Randall, Harry


Ensor, David
Lipton, Marcus
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Loughlin, Charles
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Luard, Evan
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Fernyhough, E.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Finch, Harold
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Ford, Ben
McCann, John





Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Tinn, James
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Urwin, T. W.
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Varley, Eric G.
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Rowlands, E.
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Silverman, Julius
Whitlock, William
Woof, Robert


Small, William
Wilkins, W. A.



Spriggs, Leslie
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Taverne, Dick
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Sir Gerald Nabarro and


Thornton, Ernest
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Mr. Ronald Bell.




NOES


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Bell, Ronald
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Bidwell, Sydney
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Pounder, Rafton


Booth, Albert
Hastings, Stephen
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hay, John
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Chichester-Clark, R.
Heffer, Eric S.
Russell, Sir Ronald


Clark, Henry
Iremonger, T. L.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Cooke, Robert
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Corfield, F. V.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sheldon, Robert


Crowder, F. P.
Lee, John (Reading)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Speed, Keith


Dean, Paul
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Drayson, G. B.
Maude, Angus
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Temple, John M.


Eyre, Reginald
Mikardo, Ian
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Waddington, David


Fortescue, Tim
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wall, Patrick


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Montgomery, Fergus
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Younger, Hn. George


Goodhew, Victor
Murton, Oscar



Gower, Raymond
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grant, Anthony
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Mr Alan Fitch and


Griffiths Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Mr. Neil McBride.

Question put accordingly, That the Amendment be made: —

The Committee divided: Ayes, 26, Noes 150.

Division No. 130.]
AYES
[1.34 p.m.


Brinton, Sir Tatton
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Scott-Hopkins, James


Clark, Henry
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Davideon, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Goodhew, Victor
Montgomery, Fergus
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Gower, Raymond
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Wall, Patrick


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Murton, Oscar
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar



Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hastings, Stephen
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Iremonger, T. L.
Russell, Sir Ronald
Mr. Neil McBride.




NOES


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Bence, Cyril
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Binns, John
Dell, Edmund
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)


Blackburn, F.
Dempsey, James
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Boston, Terence
Dobson, Ray
Hamling, William


Boyden, James
Doig, Peter
Hannan, William


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Dunnett, Jack
Harper, Joseph


Brooks, Edwin
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Eadie, Alex
Haseldine, Norman


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hazell, Bert


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Ellis, John
Henig, Stanley


Buchan, Norman
Ennals, David
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Ensor, David
Hilton, W. S.


Cant, R. B.
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Hooley, Frank


Carmichael, Neil
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fernyhough, E.
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Finch, Harold
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Coe, Denis
Forrester, John
Hunter, Adam


Coleman, Donald
Fowler, Gerry
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Concannon, J. D.
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Janner, Sir Barnett


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Freeson, Reginald
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Dalyell, Tam
Gardner, Tony
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)




Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Small, William


Kelley, Richard
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Smith, John (London & W'minster)


Lawson, George
Moyle, Roland
Spriggs, Leslie


Ledger, Ron
Murray, Albert
Taverne, Dick


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Neal, Harold
Thornton, Ernest


Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Oswald, Thomas
Tinn, James


Lipton, Marcus
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Urwin, T. W.


Loughlin, Charles
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Varley, Eric G.


Luard, Evan
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Waddington, David


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Maben, Dr. J. Dickson
Pentland, Norman
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)


McCann, John
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Wellbeloved, James


Macdonald, A. H.
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Whitlock, William


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Price, William (Rugby)
Wilkins, W. A.


Maclennan, Robert
Probert, Arthur
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


McNamara, J. Kevin
Randall, Harry
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Marks, Kenneth
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Mayhew, Christopher
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Milian, Bruce
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Woof, Robert


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Ross, Rt. Hn. William



Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Rowlands, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Moonman, Eric
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Mr. Russell Kerr and


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Silverman, Julius
Mr. Michael Foot.


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): The other evening my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services made a suggestion about how we might obtain a document which has aroused controversy. I still believe—and I think that this was confirmed by the speech of the Solicitor-General—that no assurance was given, but I think that hon. Members might like me to take some action for the convenience of the Committee.
I believe that it is the desire of many hon. Members to have this information if possible. This involves another place, and I should like to contact the Leader of the House in another place to make arrangements so that we can have this document presented for the debate on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill. In view of that assurance, which is to help hon. Members—and I mean that—I beg to move,
That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Mr. Powell: I rise simply because the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House—[Interruption.]—has, in so far as it lay with him, put right what many of us felt was done wrong this morning—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Powell: I do not have to sit down. I wish to thank the right hon.

Gentleman the Leader of the House for having sought to help the Committee.

Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order.

The Chairman: Order. I think that the whole Committee is anxious to go to lunch. I hope that the Committee will help the Chairman.

Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order. Mr. Irving, I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) refer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) as a Nazi. Would you ask the hon. Member to withdraw that opprobrious epithet?

The Chairman: I hope that the hon. Member will not pursue this matter. The Chair did not hear it. I should like the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) to proceed.

Mr. Powell: I have no wish to detain the Committee, and no doubt a great deal will be said on the Question which you have just put to the Committee. Nevertheless, I feel, and I believe that those who have been in the Committee this morning share this feeling, that a word of thanks should be addressed to the Leader of the House for what he said.

Mr. James Hamilton: On a point of order. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) accused my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) of calling the


right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) a Nazi. The hon. Gentleman's allegation is totally untrue—[Interruption.]

The Chairman: Order. I thought that I tactfully prevented the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) from proceeding on that line. I hope that the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) will allow me to do the same with him.

Mr. Lawson: Further to that point of order. The Committee having spent most of this morning, and most of yesterday, on points of order which were quite farcical, I protested at the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) rising to speak on what he called a matter of courtesy, but which some of us felt was completely discourteous. I wanted to say that, and I have now done so—[Interruption.]

The Chairman: Order. That is not a point of order. I hope that the hon. Member will not pursue it.

Sir D. Glover: Further to that point of order.

The Chairman: I have ruled that it is not a point of order.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

ADJOURNMENT

The Business having been concluded, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Two o'clock p. m.

Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GLASGOW CORPORATION (SUPERANNUATION, ETC.) ORDER CONFIRMATION

Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Glasgow Corporation (Superannuation etc.), presented by Mr. William Ross (under Section 7 of the Act); and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday next and to be printed. [Bill 121.]

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION

V/STOL Aircraft Services

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the high cost of construction, and high cost of operation and maintenance of major airports, unless used to capacity, if, in conjunction with the inquiry on the Third London Airport, he will institute a survey on the rôle of feeder line, and city centre to city centre short take-off and landing and vertical take-off and landing, air services in order to give advice to local authorities wishing to develop air transport facilities.

Mr. Fortescue: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to enourage the establishment of commercial vertical take-off and landing or short take-off and landing air services from city centre to city centre in this country.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. William Rodgers): The Board of Trade is associated in a great deal of work on the problems of developing acceptable VTOL and STOL aircraft.

But, as it is likely to be a decade before services with such aircraft can make a significant contribution, it is too soon to contemplate a survey from which helpful advice could emerge.

Mr. Osborn: Any guidance that can be given to a city such as Sheffield will be greatly appreciated. What evidence will the Minister give in connection with the needs of major towns and cities to the study of European VTOL studies now being carried out for the Ministry of Technology by Brian Colquhoun and Partners? What part is the Ministry taking in this study?

Mr. Rodgers: Our concern is with the operational possibilities of these aircraft. Very real difficulties have to be overcome, particularly in respect of noise. To the best of our knowledge, there are no scheduled helicopter services operating economically anywhere in the world. We are anxious to see the services developed and we shall give as much advice as we can.

Mr. Fortescue: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many do not agree with him that it will be a decade before these services will be practicable? Does he know that a heliport is to be built in Dublin Docks before the end of this year? Will he encourage other cities with large dock sites, such as Liverpool, to establish heliports in their areas?

Mr. Rodgers: I hope these heliports will be developed more rapidly. We are considering not only helicopters but also more sophisticated forms of VTOL aircraft. We shall give help, but it must be borne in mind that helicopters have not generally proved economical.

Mr. Corfield: Is not the hon. Gentleman showing a rather curious sense of priorities in starting a study of European VTOL sites without looking at British VTOL sites, indeed without any apparent financial support for an advanced study of fixed-wing VTOL aircraft?

Mr. Rodgers: The Ministry of Technology is concerned with the development of aircraft. Questions should be addressed to that Ministry. We are not dragging our feet. This is a practical technical problem. We want to get the aircraft as soon as possible, but obviously the most suitable sites will depend on the operational characteristics of the aircraft.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Will something be done to improve rail access to existing airports, such as Heathrow, where there is a goods development?

Mr. Rodgers: My hon. Friend mentions something which is very much in our minds.

Gatwick Airport Disaster (Report)

Mr. G. Johnson Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to publish the report of the inquiry into the Gatwick Airport disaster of 5th January, 1969.

Mr. William Rodgers: The Chief Inspector of Accidents will let us have his report as soon as possible and it will be published without delay. We shall, of course, be ready to act meanwhile on any information that comes to light with safety implications.

Mr. Johnson Smith: That is not very satisfactory. When is "as soon as possible"? When the Minister considers the report, will he also consider reinstating precision approach radar equipment or a modified version of it so that these facilities are in use as they are at London Airport; and, if not, why not?

Mr. Rodgers: In everybody's interests it is most important that this investigation should be thorough. It is proceeding just as fast as possible. As I have said previously, our review of the relative advantages of precision approach radar and I.L.S. must be without prejudice to the inspector's findings.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: When the report is published, will the hon. Gentleman consider receiving a deputation from Members of Parliament whose constituencies are in the neighbourhood of Gatwick and representatives of associations and residents who have been deeply concerned at the risks which they incur in the kind of circumstances which existed when this accident happened?

Mr. Rodgers: Yes. When the accident report is available I shall be very happy to discuss it with as many Members as wish to see me.

Mr. Onslow: In view of what the Minister said in his reply about safety factors, can he assure the House that he is pressing on with the maximum speed

with his review of precision approach radar and not waiting for action until he reads the report on the accident?

Mr. Rodgers: Certainly. This review is going on now. We should not wait for the accident report. I informed the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) yesterday that we are making some changes as regards the operation of foreign aircraft. These will again be without prejudice to the outcome of the inquiry.

Concorde Aircraft (Suitable Airports)

Mr. Brooks: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will indicate which British civil airports are intended to handle the Concorde; and which airports are unsuitable for supersonic transport owing to noise level, at take-off.

Mr. William Rodgers: It is not yet known which British airports other than Heathrow the operators of the Concorde will wish to serve. It has always been a design aim of Concorde that it should be no noisier than current large jets.

Mr. Brooks: In view of the mischievous allegations which were recently published in the Washington Post and which are claimed to have originated in the F.A.A., can my hon. Friend indicate how soon we shall know the noise levels of Concorde and, which is perhaps equally to the point, how soon we shall know the noise levels of the Boeing SST?

Mr. Rodgers: I cannot give an answer to the second part, because we do not even know that there is to be one. I entirely agree that there has been a certain amount of mischievous comment which I think reflects a debate going on within the United States on the whole question of SST. The Concorde will be test-flown over a considerable period. We shall not know exactly what the noise levels will be until it has taken off in normal operating conditions.

Mr. Fortescue: Does the Minister of State agree that airports whose approach is over water would be eminently suitable for the operation of Concorde and that, therefore, for its destination in the Northwest of England Liverpool would be the best place?

Mr. Rodgers: Liverpool has many admirable qualities to recommend it. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman's views would be entirely shared by those who might be under the flight path.

Mr. Ellis: In an effort to discount these rumours, will my hon. Friend say what talks he has had with the Americans as to what their attitude is likely to be? If he has had no such talks, will he forthwith get into consultation with the Americans so that we can find out something about what their attitude is likely to be and know a little more about it?

Mr. Rodgers: We need to know exactly what the noise levels are before discussions begin. Hypothetical exchanges would not help the situation. We shall be in the closest consultations with the Americans about the problems of SST noise, just as we are pressing ahead and taking a lead in dealing with aircraft noise from conventional aircraft.

Jumbo Jets (Suitable Airports)

Mr. Brooks: asked the President of the Board of Trade which British civil airports are intended to handle jumbo jets during the next decade; and what facilities will be provided at each of those airports to facilitate the movement of their passengers.

Mr. William Rodgers: Operators of these aircraft are unlikely to use airports other than Heathrow, Prestwick and probably Manchester for some time to come. In consultation with the airlines concerned, the authorities owning these aerodromes are making the necessary consequent arrangements.

Mr. Brooks: What work is being done in Britain comparable to that which was recently disclosed by Air France? Will my hon. Friend consider the possibility of using Liverpool as well as Manchester for this purpose and perhaps permitting some of the Customs formalities to be carried out on the fast train services to London?

Mr. Rodgers: There are two factors governing whether jumbo jets operate from one airport rather than from another. The first is the question of passenger handling, whether the terminal facilities are adequate. Second, there is the question of length of runway and whether it

is suited to take the weight of aircraft involved. Many discussions have taken place about these matters. The B.A.A., in particular, and also, I think, Manchester Airport have put in a good deal of investment to deal with the arrival of jumbo jets.

Mr. Robert Howarth: If it is possible that Manchester will eventually be used for the handling of these giant aircraft, will my hon. Friend have consultations with the Manchester airport authorities on the question of the deplorable access roads to that airport? It is a most difficult airport even to find.

Mr. Rodgers: We cannot usurp the proper authority of municipal airports. A decision has been made that they should be able to assume responsibility. This is very much a matter for them, but I am sure they will note what my hon. Friend has said.

Edwards Committee (Report)

Mr. Onslow: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he now expects to publish the report of the Edwards Committee.

Mr. Robert Howarth: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to publish the Edwards Committee Report.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Anthony Crosland): About the end of April.

Mr. Onslow: How soon thereafter will the right hon. Gentleman publish a White Paper? Will it be available before the Bill to extend B.E.A. borrowing powers comes before the House? Second, how long is it likely to be before legislation to implement other recommendations of the Edwards Committee can be brought in?

Mr. Crosland: I hope to issue a White Paper after reasonable time has elapsed for consultations on the part of the Government and general discussion in the aviation Press and elsewhere. As to the timing of the White Paper, I prefer to leave that at this stage because none of us yet knows how complicated or controversial the recommendations of the Edwards Committee will be. I should prefer not to answer off the cuff about the relationship between the timing of any White Paper and the Bill to which


the hon. Gentleman referred. Perhaps I may write to him about it.

Mr. Robert Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend realise that if, as we hope, the Committee proposes a positive licensing system, such a system, if adopted, would lead to the encouragement of British air transport not only by the corporations but by independent operators also?

Mr. Crosland: That is an interesting reflection, but I should prefer not to comment on what the report might or might not say until it has been produced.

Domestic Air Services

Mr. Onslow: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he is taking to stimulate the development of domestic air services.

Mr. William Rodgers: The initiative for developing services rests primarily with the operators, but we shall be reviewing our policy in the light of the Edwards Committee report.

Mr. Onslow: Is it not true that the one major barrier to the development of domestic air services is the absence of any co-ordinated airports policy?

Mr. Rodgers: No, I do not think that that is the fundamental reason. The principal difficulty is the volume of traffic and the cost of operations. Routes in this country are short, and most are not profitable. Obviously, this is an obstacle to their development.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Will the hon. Gentleman look into the monopoly services of B.E.A. between London and Manchester? This route is the Cinderella for equipment, bad time-keeping and the way in which passengers receive little consideration. Another service could operate, and then there would be really efficient service—and there is the traffic.

Mr. Rodgers: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, without necessarily accepting it. Decisions about dual designation depend on much larger factors, including whether there can be economic operation for more than one airline.

National Airports Plan

Mr. Fortescue: asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress he has made towards the establishment of a national airports plan.

Mr. William Rodgers: We are considering how best to formulate future policy for airport development, but we must take account of the report of the Edwards Committee before final decisions.

Mr. Fortescue: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that it is an essential part of his duty not only to discourage airports in some places but actively to encourage them in others?

Mr. Rodgers: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for planning.

Prestwick Airport (North Atlantic Services)

Mr. Rankin: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is satisfied that British Overseas Airways Corporation have adequately filled the gap in North Atlantic services created by his action in limiting Scandinavian Airline System flights through Prestwick; what consultations he has had with the Governments of Sweden, Norway and Denmark on the matter; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. William Rodgers: It is by its own commercial choice that Scandinavian Airlines System operates fewer North Atlantic services through Prestwick than it is permitted to. B.O.A.C. has increased its North American services at Prestwick in recent years and United States and Canadian airline services have also increased.
Since an understanding was reached in December, 1965, I have neither received nor made any request for consultations on this topic with the Governments concerned.

Mr. Rankin: Is it not the case that, at the moment, something like 80 international services are using Prestwick airport? If my hon. Friend and Prestwick want to increase that number, why does not he try to get S.A.S. to resume the services it discarded rather than direct


medium-haul services making for Glasgow Airport into Prestwick?

Mr. Rodgers: I am familiar with my hon. Friend's powerful advocacy of the cause of Glasgow, which we have de bated on several occasions. [Interruption.] I am sure we would—

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, will you restrain this crowd of hooligans here so that I can hear what is being said?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rodgers: I think that S.A.S. has found it not worth operating as many flights as it intended because it faced a great deal of competition, including the excellent services provided by B.O.A.C.

Glasgow Airport (European Services)

Mr. Rankin: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the consultations he has had with the Corporation of Glasgow and British European Airways with a view to promoting direct air services between Glasgow Airport and the Continent of Europe.

Mr. William Rodgers: We have had no such consultations.

Mr. Rankin: Will my hon. Friend, then, try to get Glasgow Corporation's view of his action last week in directing medium-haul services between Glasgow and Italy into Prestwick, in view of the fact that Prestwick is supposed to be the international and not the medium-haul airport for Scotland?

Mr. Rodgers: I am sure that Glasgow Corporation is capable of expressing its views without being asked for them by me, but I should be glad to hear any representations which it may choose to make.

Airports (Noise Control)

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the President of the Board of Trade in view of the fact that it is the policy of the British Airports Authority that there will be no significant improvement in the noise level at major airports in the next 15 years, if he will dismiss the Chairman of the Authority.

Mr. Crosland: I know of no such policy on the part of the British Airports Authority, in whose Chairman I may say that I have complete confidence. Indeed, there could be no such policy since under Section 14 of the Airports Authority Act, 1965, the control of noise at the Authority's airports rests with the Board of Trade.

Mr. Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his confidence is misplaced, and that in his evidence to the Roskill Commission the Chairman of the British Airports Authority specifically said that there would be no improvement in aircraft noise at Heathrow in the next 15 years? If this proves to be the case, will my right hon. Friend reconsider his decision, and ask himself whether such complacency on the subject of aircraft noise is not sufficient reason to raise the question whether the Chairman is fit to hold his position?

Mr. Crosland: I must take exception to what my hon. Friend has said. I know the Chairman of the British Airports Authority extremely well, as do many hon. Members on both sides. He is a most capable and dedicated public servant. He is allowed, as far as I am concerned, to express any personal views that he wishes on the question of aircraft noise, or any other subject under the sun. But I reiterate that, at the end of the day, policy on aircraft noise, as opposed to anyone's prophecies, is a matter for the Government, not for anyone else.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Is not it most regrettable that a question like this should appear on the Order Paper against a chairman of an independent authority who has rendered enormous service to this country for the last 25 years? I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will refute the allegation in the question.

Mr. Crosland: My hon. Friend is a very independent Member of this House, and he has the right to put down any Question on any subject which he chooses. My duty is simply to make it perfectly clear that I disagree with the implication of his Question and have full confidence in Mr. Masefield.

Mr. Jenkins: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to ask leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOARD OF TRADE

Mergers

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the President of the Board of Trade what are the guiding criteria and reasons which have brought about a decision to refer Unilever/Allied Breweries and Rank/De La Rue to the Monopolies Commission, and not refer the Cadbury/Schweppes merger; and what steps he will now take to clarify and explain these criteria to industry.

Mr. Barnett: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his decision to refer the proposed mergers of Unilever/Allied Breweries and Rank/De La Rue to the Monopolies Commission.

Mr. Crosland: The 1965 Act lays upon me no obligation to give or explain such criteria, or to make statements on particular merger references. Nevertheless I am considering whether I can give some general guidance on the way our decisions are reached, though it would not, I think, be desirable to give the reasons why a particular merger has or has not been referred to the Commission.

Mr. Osborn: I thank the President of the Board of Trade for confirming Press reports that he is doing this, and for his categorical statement. When does he expect to be in a position to give these guides? What form will they take? Will they be in a White Paper?

Mr. Crosland: I prefer not to commit myself on any of those points. This is a very intricate question. None of this is laid down in the 1965 Act. It is something on which, I judge from outside debate, there is no clear consensus of view at the moment. I would prefer not to commit myself to a particular timetable.

Mr. Barnett: Will my right hon. Friend give a definition of "conglomerate"? Would he agree that not all conglomerates are necessarily bad, particularly when executives of the companies concerned have proved to be good? Is it the intention in the case of all proposed conglomerate-type mergers to refer them

to the Monopolies Commission when they are over £5 million?

Mr. Crosland: On the first part of that question, I would prefer not to give an exact definition of "conglomerate". My hon. Friend is as capable as I am of giving a definition. On the second part, I do not think all conglomerates are necessarily bad, but the conglomerate merger movement raises questions of interest to all parties and all sections of public opinion. On the third part, I do not intend to refer automatically all conglomerate mergers.

Textile Industry (White Paper)

Mr. Hall-Davis: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a White Paper when he has considered the Textile Council's Productivity and Efficiency Study and the recommendations of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Further Rationalisation in the Textile Industry and further considered the Monopolies Commission Report on Cellulosic Fibres.

Mr. Crosland: I will consider this suggestion when I have had the opportunity to examine the results of these three inquiries as a whole.

Mr. Hall-Davis: In view of the importance and the far-reaching nature of the decisions which are to be taken by the Government, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that his proposals should be published and the basis on which they are reached given before they are implemented by administrative action?

Mr. Crosland: I would certainly think that in principle. I do not think that we could possibly take a major decision affecting the future of the textile industry without discussion in the House. It was only on the precise form of some publication that I was guarding myself.

Mr. Mapp: Will my right hon. Friend undertake to make available immediately on printing the Report of the Study of the Textile Council? Will he undertake to make copies available to hon. Members, at least to those from the Lancashire area?

Mr. Crosland: Publication of the Report of the Textile Council Productivity and Efficiency Study is strictly a matter


for the Textile Council and not for the Government. I understand that publication is to be next month and that copies will be made available free in the Library of the House for the convenience of hon. Members.

Banks and Discount Companies (Disclosure of Reserves)

Mr. Kenneth Baker: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, arising out of his examination of the full accounts of the banks, he proposes to withdraw the exemptions they enjoy as to the disclosure of their full reserves.

Mr. Lipton: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has completed his examination of the full accounts of banking and discount companies; and whether he will now require full disclosure of reserves and profit and loss accounts.

Mr. Barnett: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will use his powers to ensure that banks should now publish their accounts.

Mr. Crosland: My examination of the full accounts of the banks has not yet reached the point at which I can decide whether or not to continue the present exemptions.

Mr. Baker: This exercise has taken a rather long time. As this year the joint stock banks produced profit increases all within 1 or 2 per cent. of each other, it strains the credulity of the investor, and, as the banks themselves favour fuller disclosure, why cannot the right hon. Gentleman accept the proposal made by the National Board for Prices and Incomes?

Mr. Crosland: I am conscious of all the arguments that the hon. Gentleman advances, but in an Answer I gave about 14 months ago I gave a pledge to the banks that I would examine their full accounts over a period before reaching a decision. I now have the full accounts of the banks for 1967, and hope to complete my examination of those accounts in the next few weeks. I have the accounts of some banks for 1968 and hope to complete that examination shortly afterwards. As soon as possible thereafter I hope to reach a decision.

Mr. Lipton: With the inadequate cooperation that the Government are getting from our banking system, is it not time

to ensure that these annual accounts are no longer utterly incomplete and positively misleading? When will my right hon. Friend get tough and let the people know the truth about our banks?

Mr. Crosland: I take the points which my hon. Friend mentions. I am strongly in favour, wherever possible, of letting people know the truth. This is an extremely complex subject. I must have time to examine the banks' accounts properly. As soon as possible after that I shall come to a view.

Sir K. Joseph: I would have hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would have taken the opportunity to tell the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) that this Government are getting much more support from the banks than they deserve. Will the right hon. Gentleman take note that a number of assurances given by him and by the Minister of State about timing have proved to be a little optimistic? I am thinking particularly of the decision on the report on cellulosic fibres, among others. Would the right hon. Gentleman care to commit himself to any time by which he thinks he will have made a decision?

Mr. Crosland: I would not accept the right hon. Gentleman's opening remarks on the distribution of blame for any friction that may or may not have occurred between the Government and the banking system. On the substance of the point the right hon. Gentleman raises, I would prefer not to commit myself to a date, but I am very much aware of the strong feelings that are held in parts at any rate of both sides of the House on this question and I certainly do not intend to allow this question to drag on indefinitely.

Mr. Barnett: Why need my right hon. Friend wait for the 1968 accounts? For the purpose of his exercise, are not the previous year's accounts sufficient, and will he agree that the old arguments against publishing the accounts no longer apply? Second, in view of the recent Government Measures which have helped to put substantially more money in the pockets of the banks, is it not right that we should at least know what that amount of money is?

Mr. Crosland: As to whether an examination of the 1968 accounts will or will not be necessary, I prefer to wait to see


what the results are of our examination of the 1967 accounts. It may be possible to come to a view on the basis of that one year alone. As to the more general questions which my hon. Friend raises, I am well aware of the view which he holds on the matter, and I am not out of sympathy with it.

Mergers and Take-overs

Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a further statement on his policy towards mergers and take-overs.

Mr. Crosland: My policy continues to be based on the principles of the 1965 Act. But, as I said in a recent speech at Manchester, of which copies have been placed in the Library, I am considering whether I can give more information about the way in which we use the discretion which the law confers upon us.

Mr. Davidson: In that excellent speech, my right hon. Friend meditated on the dangers of merger fever. Have those meditations now been translated into positive proposals to deal with the situation?

Mr. Crosland: No, Sir. I think that meditation is in itself a positively desirable state of mind, and, as far as I am concerned, it is for the moment still continuing.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that if his meditation leads him to the important conclusion that too much in the nature of activities of a meddlesome Mattie—a meddlesome Mattie—a meddlesome Mattie—by his Department would be wholly injurious to British industry, he would be well advised to meditate at greater length and stay out of the arena?

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no need to repeat a metaphor.

Mr. Crosland: The hon. Gentleman's language was a little mystifying. As regards the substance of what he said, he should recall that his party—I believe that he was in the House at the time— did not vote against the 1965 Act which lays down the broad principles of monopolies and mergers policy, which we are still continuing.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Has not the President of the Board of Trade noted the almost universal expression of view in the debate on Friday, 7th March, about the ridiculous situation in which the biggest merger which has taken place in this country in recent months—the G.E.C.-etc. merger—never reached the Monopolies Commission but was dealt with by an entirely different and, in the view of many, entirely unsatisfactory procedure?

Mr. Crosland: I read that debate with great interest and was sorry that, being then in Latin America, I could not take it. I read with particular interest the hon. Gentleman's speech. I have always held the view that that merger was in a different category from other mergers which we have referred, first, because it was strongly supported not only by the I.R.C. but by the bulk of independent opinion, and, second, because there were circumstances in terms of the buyers of the goods produced by the merged firm which appeared to me and to my colleagues to give sufficient guarantees against any excessive monopoly power.

Amusement Machines

Mr. Lipton: asked the President of the Board of Trade what further action he now proposes to take to cut the imports of coin-operated gramophones, record players and amusement machines, now amounting to more than £5 million a year for 1967 and 1968.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Edmund Dell): As I explained in Answer to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) on 4th December, these products are covered by the import deposit scheme. I do not think that additional special restriction on imports of particular classes of products would be justified.—[Vol. 774, c. 482.]

Mr. Lipton: In our sticky balance of payments position, is it not crazy that we waste a lot of hard currency in this way? Does my hon. Friend recall—he was not in the House at the time—the memorable statement that the language of priorities is the religion of Socialism? When will he put that into effect?

Mr. Dell: I recall that memorable statement, even though I was not in the


House at the time. My hon. Friend will realise that the problem of inessential imports leads one also to consider the problem of exports from this country which other countries might consider inessential and on which they might place restrictions if we placed restrictions on theirs.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: That reply and the one given to me previously are quite unsatisfactory. Is my hon. Friend aware that these imports are growing each year? Is it not a terrible waste of time and money to have "one-armed bandits" coming in when we could import things which are really necessary at home?

Mr. Dell: I agree that these imports are growing. On the other hand, the exports to which I referred, which other countries might regard as inessential, are fortunately growing, too.

Import Duties (Temporary Exemptions) (No. 6) Order, 1968

Mr. Blaker: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now introduce legislation to amend the Import Duties (Temporary Exemptions) (No. 6) Order, 1968 in order to meet the criticisms made by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments.

Mr. Dell: An order to this effect was made on 11th March (S.I., 1969, No. 315).

Mr. Blaker: Will the Minister take it that that development will be welcomed?

South Africa (Tourist Advertisements)

Mr. Winnick: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now state the result of the further inquiries which his Department has made into the position of the South African holiday advertisements and the Trade Descriptions Act.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): Inquiries have confirmed that the body which sponsored the advertisement to which my hon. Friend referred on 11th February did not make that statement in the course of a trade or business, and therefore could not have offended against the Trade Descriptions Act. If my hon. Friend has reason to

think that any other person has committed an offence, this can be brought to the attention of the appropriate local weights and measures authority for due consideration.

Mr. Winnick: Are not these South African holiday advertisements quite dishonest? Non-whites are barred from taking their holidays in South Africa. In view of that, surely there is a clear infringement of the Trade Descriptions Act?

Mrs. Dunwoody: We have looked at the terms of the Act very carefully. Whether any advertising agency or newspaper involved in the publication of this statement may have committed an offence against the Act is a rather different question which it would be right for the local authority to consider in the first instance. If my hon. Friend wishes, I will draw it to its attention.

Rumanian Oil

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the President of the Board of Trade why he refuses to allow the import of oil from Rumania.

Mr. Dell: The question of taking Rumanian oil cannot be separated from an acceptable settlement of outstanding British claims against the Rumanian Government, including claims by British oil companies.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Is the Minister saying, therefore, that we do not trade with countries that have expropriated British assets without compensation? Is not it in the interests of our trading position that discussions should now be initiated with Rumania to see whether an arrangement cannot be made after all these years?

Mr. Dell: I am certainly not saying the first thing the hon. Gentleman suggested. I would very much welcome discussions which would lead to the settlement of the claims. That would be beneficial to the trade of both countries.

Mr. Brooks: As the Government are exporting, for example, the B.A.C. 111 to Rumania, and no doubt wish to expand their trade with Rumania, is it not completely illogical to exclude from


trade one of the obvious commodities the Rumanians can sell to get hard currency?

Mr. Dell: The claims in question are very large. We judge that it is right, in an attempt to get the settlement of these justified claims, to take this attitude in respect of the import of Rumanian oil.

National Exhibition Centre

Mr. Milne: asked the President of the Board of Trade when the report of the Committee to examine the possibilities of a National Exhibition Centre can be expected; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Crosland: The Committee referred to is an advisory body which is not required to present a formal report. At this stage I cannot usefully add to the reply which was given to my hon. Friend in the Adjournment debate on 12th February.—[Vol. 777; c. 1491–1500.]

Mr. Milne: My right hon. Friend is undoubtedly aware of the importance of an exhibition centre of this type. Is he aware that the present exhibition centres being provided are inadequate to our export needs? Can he speed things up so that we get a National Exhibition Centre as soon as possible?

Mr. Crosland: Like my hon. Friend, I am strongly aware of the importance of getting the National Exhibition Centre. There are genuine difficulties in terms of its location, the finance and the type of organisation to run it, but, again, I suspect like my hon. Friend, I am becoming very impatient at the delay in achieving this, and I entirely share his views about the need for haste.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Will the Minister bear in mind that if we are to have a National Exhibition Centre it should be in the centre of London, or somewhere like that? It would be quite useless to put it 15 or 16 miles out—for example, Northolt is suggested—because it is important to business men and other visitors coming to London.

Mr. Crosland: No, Sir. I do not think the experience of exhibition centres in other countries, many of which I have

visited, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman has, supports the view that they should be or can in practice conceivably be in the centre of large cities. The site at Northolt, which is now the favoured site, and which I hope will be the final one, is just about the right distance and the right size to allow us to produce a centre that is big enough.

Mr. Ford: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have a Question down tomorrow that will give the interesting possibility of the establishment of an exhibition site at the old Avro factory at Yeadon in Yorkshire?

Mr. Crosland: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I like to consider all interesting possibilities, but this has come into this picture at a rather late stage.

Mr. Corfield: Do we take it from what the right hon. Gentleman said that the intention is to close Northolt Airport?

Mr. Crosland: No, Sir.

Advertising (Economic Effects)

Mr. Milne: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give details of the independent research commissioned by his Department into aspects of the economic effects of advertising and a list of the firms involved.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: It is hoped to commission the first study, which will be into the effects of advertising on the structure of industries, within the next few months.

Mr. Milne: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is not fast enough progress? While we thank her for that reply, we ask for a more speedy effect on the advertising industry by the introduction of the report at the earliest possible moment.

Mrs. Dunwoody: We all want to see the report cover a very wide field. It is essential that we should get the terms of reference right. It will take about 18 months to complete after it has been commissioned

Sir K. Joseph: How much is the report going to cost?

Mrs. Dunwoody: Since it has not yet been decided who will report, it is rather difficult to tell the right hon. Gentleman the exact figure.

Import Substitution

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the President of the Board of Trade what import substitution results have been achieved since the Prime Minister's statement in January 1968, especially in agriculture; and what further measures he proposes for obtaining imports substitution including antidumping orders.

Mr. Dell: It is not possible to put a figure to the import saving which has taken place over the whole range of imports since the Prime Minister's statement. As regards agriculture, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food gave to the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) on 26th February. As far as further measures are concerned, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him in answer to a similar Question on 11th December last.—[Vol. 778; c. 1705–6; Vol. 775, c. 143.]

Sir G. Nabarro: Will the Board of Trade Ministers try to understand the genuine concern of hon. Members on both sides of the House seeking to aid balance of payments matters by establishing what progress is being made in import-substitution? Where can we get the figures, if not from the Board of Trade?

Mr. Dell: I understand the concern in all sections of the House. As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food told the House on 26th February that the increase in home food consumption has been met to a large extent by the additional production of products which we can grow. There are many other examples known to the House of assistance given to import substitution. One major example recently considered by the House was the aluminium smelter.

Mr. Lipton: In import substitution, is the Board of Trade doing anything to encourage British manufacturers of juke boxes so that they can be substituted for the American products?

Mr. Dell: That is a very interesting question. I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to write to him.

Unit Trusts

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many unit trusts have been approved by his Department; and whether he will publish particulars in the Board of Trade Gazette, together with the aggregate sums, cumulatively, vested in Board of Trade-authorised unit trusts.

Mr. Dell: There are 207 authorised unit trusts. The names of the trusts, the management companies and the trustees are published annually in Particulars of Dealers in Securities and of Unit Trusts. The total of the funds of the authorised unit trusts is published monthly in Financial Statistics.

Sir G. Nabarro: Would the hon. Gentleman realise that unit trusts in the aggregation were responsible in 1968 for nine times as much, in terms of sums invested and remaining invested, as National Savings? Would not it be appropriate, now that unit trusts are the major instrument for collecting small savings, to publish the outcome monthly, not annually, so that the progress may be watched by everybody interested in savings of all descriptions?

Mr. Dell: I think that perhaps the hon. Gentleman misheard. The Answer was that the names of authorised trusts are published annually but the financial aspect in which he is interested is published monthly in Financial Statistics.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Having regard to the importance of unit trusts, to which the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) has rightly drawn attention, will my hon. Friend pay further attention to the matter I have raised with him in correspondence concerning the contributions made by companies in which the unit trusts invest to the funds of the Conservative Party?

Mr. Dell: I am very much aware of my hon. Friend's interest in this subject. As I have pointed out to him, one of the consequences of the 1967 Companies Act is that we now know which companies make political contributions.

Outdated Factories (Rebuilding)

Mr. Costain: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will grant industrial development certificates


in London, the Midlands and the South East of England for the rebuilding of existing outdated factories in order to increase efficiency where no increase in employment is involved.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The Board of Trade is normally prepared to grant industrial development certificates in such cases.

Mr. Costain: Is the hon. Lady aware that that reply will be received with some satisfaction? Will she give some publicity to the fact?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I should be delighted to give publicity to the fact that the Board of Trade is anxious to do anything which will assist the modernisation and equipment of industry. It is not this side of the House that seeks to misrepresent i.d.c. policy.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that this is really the question of the allocation of resources, which are very unevenly distributed at present? Will she, therefore, offer the owners of these outdated factories development certificates for new factories in South Wales, Scotland and the North of England?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I shall be delighted to see as many industrialists as possible who are looking for modern factories moving into them—and, of course, in the development areas if we can so encourage them. It is a source of great pleasure to me that we now have only one empty advance factory in the whole of Wales.

Sir K. Joseph: Does the hon. Lady think that she has said anything new this afternoon? The positive emphasis she gave in that Answer is very encouraging. Is it a new development in any way, or is she relying perhaps excessively on a verbal definition of "outdated"? Are we to understand in answer to my hon. Friend's Question that factories which require rebuilding to accept modernised plants are given i.d.c.s for that purpose?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am not enunciating any new policy, and I am grateful for the chance to make this clear. The Board of Trade has always said that where modernisation plans could be brought forward that did not include an increase in employment—and this is one of the

vital points—we should obviously be prepared to issue industrial development certificates in those circumstances. But there is a completely schizoid approach to this matter among hon. Members opposite. Those who come from development areas say that we should be doing more, while those from the Midlands, particularly the West Midlands, and the South-East say that we are doing all we can to hold up the modernisation of industry, which is simply not so.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: However satisfied or dissatisfied development areas might be about the allocation of certificates, is the hon. Lady aware that the new towns, particularly those based upon the old conurbations, feel that they are not having their proper priority?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I do not accept that. When development areas have continuingly high unemployment figures, it is extremely difficult to provide enough movement in industry always to be able to match up exactly the amount of employment and the houses available in the new towns. The hon. Gentleman should speak to some of his friends in the conurbations and get them to move to new towns. We should be pleased to see that happen.

Exports

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will undertake a study of the extent to which the export of British goods depends on the amount of imports of agricultural products from foreign countries; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The likely effect on United Kingdom exports is taken into account in formualting the Government's agricultural policy. We shall be considering in the context of the recent recommendations of the Select Committee on Agriculture, the practicability of making a more precise study of this matter.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Will the hon. Lady bear in mind that to most people the quality and delivery of our exports is much more relevant than the amount of imports we take from other countries when these matters are being decided upon by foreign countries?

Mrs. Dunwoody: This is a vital point. There is no doubt that delivery dates are of enormous importance.

Industrial Development (West Midlands)

Mr. William Price: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is satisfied with the permitted rate of industrial development in the West Mid lands; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: As I told my hon. Friend on 12th February, the approval of i.d.cs for 11·5 million sq. ft. of industrial space in the West Midlands in 1968 combined with a level of unemployment below the national average does not in any way suggest that industrial growth in the West Midlands is being unduly restricted—[Vol. 777, c. 305–6.]

Mr. Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that some of the less honourable Members opposite—[HON. MEMBERS: "With draw."]—are trying to create the impression that the Government have stopped industrial development in the West Midlands? Is that not odd in view of the fact that—

Mr. Corfield: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to suggest that any other hon. Members is not honourable or is dishonourable?

Mr. Speaker: It would be out of order to suggest that one hon. Member is not honourable but charges may be levelled against a group.

Mr. Price: Is this allegation not odd in view of the fact that, despite the Government's regional policies, which we in the West Midlands support, more industrial development certificates are going to that area now than ever went there under the Tories?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am grateful for those remarks. I am fascinated by the schizoid attitude of hon. Members opposite towards this matter. They suggest one thing in the West Midlands and elsewhere and something totally different in the development areas.

Investment Grants

Mr. Blaker: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the amount of the investment grants paid

during the most recent period in respect of the printing of posters and circulars and of the blending of butter, respectively.

Mr. Dell: Information about the payment of grants is not available in this detail.

Mr. Blaker: What is the hon. Gentleman's estimate of the contribution of these two industries to exporting or import saving? Does he really think that they are more deserving of investment grants than other industries which do not get them, such as the scrap metal and waste paper recovery industries?

Mr. Dell: I cannot give that figure without notice. The dividing line in the Industrial Development Act is in respect of manufacturing industry. These are manufacturing processes in respect of which, therefore, the grants are given.

Mr. J. T. Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in the opinion of some of us on this side of the House, the indiscriminate use of investment grants represents the biggest hole in the economic bucket? Speaking for myself, I strongly urge the Government to take the closest look into the way these grants are being grossly misused by large sections of industry.

Mr. Dell: I am aware of my hon. Friend's opinions in this matter. I do not agree with him. The evidence is—and we heard it on 4th February, when he took a brief part in the debate—that investment grants are a major incentive to investment in manufacturing industries. But we are conducting an inquiry, as I said on that occasion, which will attempt to assess the effectiveness of this investment incentive.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: While many of us would agree with the opinion expressed by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price), will the Minister of State recognise that schizophrenia is not confined to one side of the House?

Mr. Dell: I think the danger is when schizophrenia appears in an individual rather than in a group.

Exports (Hungary)

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the President of the Board of Trade what advice he is issuing to British industry about exporting to Hungary in view of the


economic reorganisation introduced there last year.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Exports to Hungary have risen encouragingly in recent years. They should continue to do well, provided British suppliers remain competitive.

Mrs. Short: Is my hon. Friend aware that opportunities for selling to Hungary have greatly increased with the increase in the number of organisations in Hungary now allowed to buy direct from foreign countries? Will she see that this information is given to British firms so that they can increase our exports to Hungary even further?

Mrs. Dunwoody: We are well aware of the opportunities and are delighted to note that the economic reforms will begin to take effect over a period of years. We hope that British industry will be encouraged by the opportunities and will benefit from them.

Leather Industry

Mr. Robert Howarth: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will extend the scope of the industrial development grant available to the leather industry for effluent cleansing processes to allow it to be transferred to the appropriate local authority so that the processing of domestic and industrial effluent might be undertaken in the most economic manner.

Mr. Dell: No, Sir. Evidence has not been produced which would, in my view, justify the radical amendment to the Industrial Development Act which this would require.

Mr. Howarth: Is it not illogical to offer to an employer grants towards the installation of cleansing plant which, if it could be transferred to a local authority, would be able to be used as a district plant, making it much more economic?

Mr. Dell: Under the Industrial Development Act payments must be made to persons who both provide the eligible assets and use them in the course of their business. There might be an argument for reviewing this in this case if evidence were produced that this rule has led to uneconomic investment in effluent plant by the leather industry. I have no

such evidence, and pending that I will certainly stick to the original Answer.

Mr. Tom Boardman: Is the Minister aware that the leather industry has been encouraged to set up its own individual plant for disposal of trade effluent so that it gets the grant? Does he not agree that it could be much more economically achieved by the local authority if it had the plant?

Mr. Dell: It is evidence of that particular proposition that I should like to see. We have asked for such evidence but it has not been provided.

Manufacturing Industry (Investment)

Mr. Emery: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the investment in manufacturing industry since 1966 which has arisen directly from the introduction of investment grants.

Mr. Dell: The influence cannot be separately measured.

Mr Emery: Does the Minister realise that the capital expenditure between 1966–67 decreased in manufacturing industry, and decreased again between 1967–68? How does the Minister hold to the statements he made earlier today, that investment grants are a major incentive to increasing investments in manufacturing industry?

Mr. Dell: The decline in manufacturing investment during that particular cycle was a great deal less than in the previous cycle. This is very probably attributable to the 5 per cent. supplement allowed in 1967–68. It is interesting that the C.B.I. for example, although it has made it clear that it does not support the investment grant system, nevertheless asked for a continuation of the supplement to encourage investment.

Mr. James Davidson: Would the right hon. Gentleman say how many investment schemes have been initiated under the Industrial Expansion Act, 1968, by competent authorities—or incompetent authorities?

Mr. Dell: This is an entirely different question. Speaking from memory, I think that there are two, one in respect of the computer industry and one in respect of the aluminium smelter industry.

Trade Effluent (Disposal Plants)

Mr. Wall: asked the President of the Board of Trade what financial assistance has been given to industry during each of the last five years for the construction of plants for the disposal of trade effluent.

Mr. Dell: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Wall: Is it not a fact that in many of these cases it has been far more economical to have joint schemes between industry and the local authority? Why is it that industrial schemes attract a grant but local authority joint schemes do not?

Mr. Dell: The justification lies solely in the law. It would be possible for the Board of Trade to make a grant in such circumstances, but it is unfortunately impossible under the existing law for local authorities to enter into partnership in these schemes with private enterprise.

South Africa

Mr. Wall: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on Anglo-South African trade.

Mr. Crosland: Our exports to South Africa were £261 million in 1968, slightly more than in 1967 although South Africa's total imports were slightly down. Our imports from South Africa were £271 million.

Mr. Wall: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is evidence to show that Her Majesty's Government's policy of not supplying defence arms to South Africa is having an adverse effect on our trade? What is being done positively to ensure participation of British firms in the shipbuilding and aircraft industries of South Africa, which are entirely new and important developments?

Mr. Crosland: I take it that the first part of the hon. Gentleman's Question refers to the fact that this Government, like other Governments, is acceding to a United Nations decision on the prohibition of arms to South Africa. On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's Question, the facts of the matter are completely

in contradiction to what he said. As my Answer made clear, last year Britain actually increased her share of total South African imports. On the third part of his question, a great many measures are being taken both by B.N.E.C. Africa and by the Government to encourage the kind of trade that he has in mind.

Mr. McNamara: Would my right hon. Friend agree that it is right and proper for the Government to pursue their policy of not supplying arms of any kind to the South African régime at the moment and that, contrary to the expectations of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, the Government have not suffered as a result of that policy?

Mr. Crosland: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have no doubt that the policy is right and in line with United Nations policy. He is also right in saying, as the Answer which I gave demonstrates with figures, that this country has suffered nothing from this policy.

Mr. Biffen: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that none of the exports to which this Question refers do find their way into Rhodesia?

Mr. Crosland: The Question refers not to exports but to the general question of Anglo-South African trade. The answer I gave shows clearly that in 1968, as against 1967, contrary to what has been constantly prophesied by hon. Gentlemen opposite, the British share of South African imports actually increased.

Inertia Selling

Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is satisfied that the existing law provides adequate protection for the public from the effects of inertia selling; and if he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to ensure that persons cannot be required to pay for goods sent through the post which the recipients have not ordered and do not want.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: As the law already stands, people cannot be required to pay for unsolicited goods which they do not choose to accept, and this should be clearly understood.

Mr. Davidson: Why should the public be put to trouble, expense, and ordeal by solicitor's letter in respect of these goods which they have not ordered? Is it not time that the onus was put very firmly on the firms which choose to operate in this way, just within the law? If they choose to send out goods in this fashion, ought they not to do so at their own risk and cost?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend's point of view. The difficulty is in framing legal safeguards of the sort that he has suggested. I would be happy to look at this again.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Is not the real need for publicity to explain to members of the public that they have no obligations in this matter, and that they need not pay any attention to demands for payment, when they have taken no steps to indicate a desire for the goods?

Mrs. Dunwoody: We believe that if people knew their rights even more clearly in this matter they would be protected. We have deliberately put a reference to this type of selling in our latest publicity leaflet on the Trade Descriptions Act, and I hope that people will firmly refuse to have anything to do with goods sent to them in this manner.

Knitwear Exports (Australian Restrictions)

Mr. David Steel: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what representations have been made to the Government of Australia about their import restrictions on United Kingdom knitwear;

(2) to what extent exports of high quality knitwear to Australia have been adversely affected by the quantity restrictions introduced by that Government in December, 1967.

Mr. Dell: There was some recovery in the sterling value of our exports of high quality knitwear to Australia between 1967 and 1968. No Government-to-Government representations have been made since the quota restrictions were introduced in December, 1967, but it remains our hope that if the Australian Tariff Board decides that continued protection is necessary, this can be so devised

as to bear more lightly on high-quality supplies.

Mr. Steel: Would it not be useful to make Government-to-Government representations on this matter, and suggest to the Australians that their objectives could be met if they exempted from their quota restrictions the import of pure wool knitwear, which is above the value of 15 Australian dollars per 1b. weight?

Mr. Dell: As I indicated to the hon. Member, we are bringing to the attention of the Australian authorities, through the Tariff Board, that such a method of discrimination, in favour of high quality knitwear, should be used. These representations are open to be made by the British industry because the Tariff Board is an independent authority. I hope that the Government will be able to find some means of making informal representations.

Mr. Speaker: I would remind the House that ahead of us we have two Private Notice Questions, three important Statements, a Motion of Censure, the Air Force Estimates and two Bills. Conciseness in debate and questions will help us today.

ELECTRICITY POWER FAILURE (WHITBY)

Mr. Michael Shaw: Mr. Michael Shaw (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Power whether he will make a statement about the electricity power failure in the Whitby district, Yorkshire.

The Minister of Power (Mr. Roy Mason): Blizzards have led to local power failures in a number of places in the North of England in the past few days. In most cases supplies have been restored within a few hours, but Whitby has now been without power since Monday evening. The North Eastern Electricity Board tells me that it has restored limited supplies to half the consumers affected; restoration of supplies to the remainder is being made as quickly as possible, but there is still considerable repair work to be done in atrocious weather before full supplies can be restored.

Mr. Shaw: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement. Will he add


my tribute to the staff of the electricity authority who have been working in almost impossible conditions to get the supply going again. None the less, is he not aware that it is a serious position that about 20,000 people living in that area should have been cut off, in many cases from their only source of power, and that there is a need in such exposed areas to have a much more adequate source of emergency supply?

Mr. Mason: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for paying tribute to the Electricity Board's linesmen, who have been working in arctic and atrocious conditions on the moors. Nine thousand people were affected. Five thousand people have already had limited supplies of electricity restored to them, and the Board hopes to be able to restore supplies to the remainder as quickly as possible.

LIBRARY DOCUMENTS (AVAILABILITY TO MEMBERS)

Mr. Sheldon: (by Private Notice)asked Mr. Speaker whether he will direct that a document placed in the Library, recording Peers' attendances, is made available to Members.

Mr. Speaker: In view of the Ruling that I am about to give, I should first say how much the House appreciates the courteous, devoted and skilled service that the Librarian and his staff give to hon. Members at all times.

The question raised by the hon. Member is clearly one of importance to the House. Upon receiving the Question, which I have decided to allow him to ask by Private Notice, I made inquiries from the Library of the House about the document for which he asks, and I have now received the following information:
The document was loaned to us by the House of Lords Journal Office in order to provide a short cut to figures on the attendance of Peers in Session 1966–67. The original document, which is marked confidential, was produced for their own office purposes by the House of Lords Journal Office, and consists of an alphabetical list of Peers enumerating their individual attendances during the Session.
The document was provided on the understanding that, while it might be freely used by the Library for statistical purposes, details

of individual attendances of Peers should not be disclosed, nor should the document itself be passed on to a Member.

I am sure the House will agree with me that the Library has in this instance done everything possible within the limits of its authority to meet the needs of Members. I think, however, that nothing which reaches the Library should be withheld from Members seeking information. Consequently, if information comes into the possession of the Library, the restriction that the document is confidential, while it should apply to members of the public seeking information, should not apply in the case of hon. Members.

In future, therefore, I am directing the Library to make available to Members all documents which relate to their work in the House, whether marked confidential or not.

Mr. Sheldon: While thanking you, Mr. Speaker, for that reply, might I point out that this whole matter was raised on the advice of a right hon. Member, whose judgment in these matters I deeply respect, as providing a possible solution to the impasse which we reached in the debate on the Parliament (No. 2) Bill last night, and in the resumed debate this morning—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not discuss with Mr. Speaker anything which happens in Committee, of which he has no official knowledge.

Mr. Sheldon: I was just thanking you, Mr. Speaker, for making it clear that a solution is possible, and I was pointing out that the unfortunate happening that led to this can now be readily solved. I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House if he will add to this to find the complete and final solution to this problem.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): I do not wish to add anything in the way which my hon. Friend mentioned, but I made a statement earlier on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, and I will communicate with the Leader of another place to try to make arrangements for the document to be made available.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that we can now move on.

Mr. Hastings: I wonder if you, Mr. Speaker, would help us with another matter which was raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General in the same context. He produced this morning what seemed to many of us to be a new doctrine with regard to the document in the Library, which was that we could seek to secure the document, or any other document which was being withheld, only by a Resolution of the House. This seemed to us to be a new method; will you advise us on this?

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker must not take up bit by bit points that were made in debates in Committee. If the hon. Gentleman has a serious point to put to me, he must let me know and I will look at it.

ANGUILLA

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on Anguilla.
I must ask the indulgence of the House for its length, but I think that the House will wish to know not only the action we have taken but some of the background and the reasons for it.
I have to inform the House that this morning Her Majesty's Commissioner was installed on Anguilla. A small military force, accompanied by British police officers, landed on the island. The military force is acting in support of the civil power, and I am glad to say that the operation, which took place a few hours ago, has proceeded peacefully, for which great credit is due to those who took part in it.
Independent Commonwealth Governments in the Caribbean were informed of our intention before action was taken and are in general agreement with our objectives. Governments of the Associated States in the Caribbean area have also been kept fully informed and also agree.
St. Christopher, Nevis and Anguilla, which had been administered as a unified territory since 1882, became an associated State on 27th February, 1967,

following the usual processes of constitutional advancement. In May of that year, the inhabitants of Anguilla ejected the small detachment of State police from the island, and subsequently purported to declare themselves independent. Since then, there has been no lawful Government on the island. Many attempts have been made to reach a satisfactory settlement in the dispute between the Anguillans and the Central Government. A conference was held in Barbados in July, 1967, attended by Ministers from the independent Commonwealth Caribbean Governments— namely, Barbados, Guyana, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, also Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, the St. Kitts Government and leaders of the Anguillans.
A further attempt to provide an interim settlement was made in December, 1967, and January, 1968, when an agreement between Her Majesty's Government, the St. Kitts Government and the Anguillan leaders was negotiated by my hon. Friend, the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) and the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher). This arrangement, or interim settlement as it came to be known, provided for the introduction of a senior British official, Mr. Tony Lee, to advise on the administration on Anguilla for a period of twelve months during which it was agreed that efforts would be made to negotiate a lasting settlement on lines acceptable to both parties, who undertook to refrain from hostile action during this period.
Before the expiry of the twelve month period, a determined effort was made to establish whether common ground existed. Talks were held in London last October under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, attended by the Premier of St. Kitts and the Anguillan leader, Mr. Webster. At these talks, the possibility of a lasting settlement was discussed, and the possibility of extending by agreement the interim settlement. No final agreement was however reached. The Anguillan leader notified me on 30th December that the interim settlement was at an end. Mr. Lee was then withdrawn from the island, but we arranged for him to pay periodic visits to Anguilla. On 9th January, for the second time


Mr. Webster declared the island independent of St. Kitts and announced that all legal ties with the Crown had been severed.
Now I come to recent events. In the course of his recent visit to the Eastern Caribbean, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary had discussions in St. Kitts with the State Government. He found that they recognised the strength of feeling in Anguilla against the restoration of control over the island by the State Government. My hon. Friend visited Anguilla on 11th March to put forward our proposals.
He made clear to the islanders when he arrived that the British Government wanted to restore lawful government in Anguilla and then work out a long-term solution of the island's problems acceptable to all concerned, especially the inhabitants of the island itself. For this purpose, Mr. Lee was to be established in Anguilla as Her Majesty's Commissioner.
These proposals received an enthusiastic response at the airport from which it was evident that the Anguillans as a whole would have welcomed them. After this reception, an armed minority decided that the proposals must not be further discussed with the people of the island. My hon. Friend was confronted with a group of armed men who demanded his withdrawal from the island. After shots had been fired, he decided to leave the island to avoid possible bloodshed.—[Interruption.] I think that any hon. Member, had he been in that position and aware of how much the whole future would have been damaged if there had been any loss of life or injury, would have taken the action that my hon. Friend took. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
Our concern all along has been for the people of Anguilla. We want them to enjoy good government, and to enjoy it unintimidated and in freedom. As I told the House yesterday, it is not our purpose to see the Anguillans living under an administration that they do not want.
We have, however, a responsibility under the West Indies Act. We took action because conditions in Anguilla were such that it was impossible for us

to discharge our constitutional responsibilities for defence and external affairs. We have, therefore, installed in Anguilla a Commissioner in whom certain powers have been vested by an Order in Council made yesterday.
The whole Caribbean area needs stability in order to make progress. It is an area which is particularly susceptible to exploitation. There is also among these small islands the danger of fragmentation. The countries of the Commonwealth in the Caribbean attach great importance to the rule of law and to acting in accordance with constitutions rather than flouting them. A meeting of Heads of Government of Caribbean states last month expressed concern at the situation on Anguilla and called upon Her Majesty's Government to take all the necessary steps, in collaboration with the Government of the State, to confirm the territorial integrity of St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla.
As regards the future, Her Majesty's Commissioner will remain on the island until a lasting settlement can be negotiated which will pay full regard to the wishes and interests of all concerned, in particular to those of the inhabitants of the island, who can then go ahead with the development of the possibilities and amenities of their island.

Mr. Maudling: I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House are glad to know that this operation took place without bloodshed. At a later date, probably we shall wish to raise the question why the Government have been so long in facing up to this situation, which has developed over a long period.
I want to ask some serious question about the status of this operation. The right hon. Gentleman said that this was a dispute between the Anguillans and the Central Government; in other words, an internal dispute within the islands. As I understand it, we are reimposing a form of direct rule and, under the West Indies Act, 1967, we can do this either if our obligations in matters of defence and foreign affairs are made impossible to carry out or, alternatively, at the request and with the consent of the St. Kitts Government.
Do Her Majesty's Government really maintain that their action has been part


of defending Anguilla against external aggression? Secondly, how can they remain there for the long time envisaged by the Foreign Secretary on that basis unless they have the request and consent of the St. Kitts Government? In those circumstances, can they expect the people of Anguilla to be confident that their wishes will be regarded as paramount?

Mr. Stewart: On the first point, I described the steps which had been taken, ever since this dispute arose, to reach agreement. But we have to remember that, although there has been this recent dispute, it is only a modern form of a profound difference which has existed for a number of decades. We felt it right, therefore, when the dispute arose in its present form, to expend a good deal of time and patience in trying to get agreement. It was not a question of our doing nothing about this. I described to the House the many steps taken to reach agreement. I think that it was right to expend time and patience on that.
On the second point, the right hon. Gentleman will realise that we are responsible both for the defence and the external relations of an Associated State. The position here is that in this part of the Associated State there was a danger that somewhat disreputable characters from outside the State and possessing arms were exercising influence on those who purported to be its Government.
That was one point. There was also the fact that if, as a result of the absence of any lawful government or good order in the island, any injury were done to the personal property of a national of any other country, we, by virtue of our responsibility for external relations, would have been held responsible. Therefore, the situation was that we could not fully discharge our responsibilities for external relations unless we took action about the situation in Anguilla. That is why the strict legal basis for what we have done rests on an Order in Council made under Section 7(2) of the Act, which refers to external relations. But, in fact, what we have done has also been done with the full agreement of the St. Kitts Government.
As to the future, I am sure that the right course now is for Her Majesty's Commissioner to have an opportunity to do his work, to see that the island is well governed and developed, for everyone

to have a breathing space, and for everyone concerned, including the Anguillans, to have time for reflection and then judge where their real interests in the future lie.

Mr. Henig: Now that the House has heard the facts from my right hon. Friend, many people will feel that the British Government have acted with complete honour. Will my right hon. Friend draw from this the lesson that, as this affair proceeds, absolute frankness will be the best policy? Will he in due course, since there has been some controversy over this matter, give the House further details of the alleged Mafia and gangster activities which have been going on in Anguilla?

Mr. Stewart: I hope that the House will not accuse me of any lack of frankness in this matter. At certain times I have been obliged to tell the House that there was some information I could not yet give—particularly information about the exact timing and nature of a military operation. So far as is humanly possible, I have given the House a correct picture of what has been happening.
On the use of the word "Mafia", I think that is an exaggerated term, I drew my hon. Friend's attention to the phrase that I used, "disreputable characters"— but they were disreputable characters who had arms.

Mr. Marten: Is it now a principle of government that the Government can intervene where there are disreputable characters in other places? Can the Foreign Secretary say what are the legal powers of Her Majesty's Commissioner and with whom in Anguilla the High Commissioner will deal?

Mr. Stewart: I think that I explained the legal position in answer to the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling). A situation developed in Anguilla which was making it impossible for us to discharge our duties as we are responsible for external relations. That is why we took action. Her Majesty's Commissioner will act, of course, in accordance with directives given by Her Majesty. He is Her Majesty's Commissioner. I say emphatically that any Anguillans—and I believe this is the overwhelming majority— who wish and are willing to help the Commissioner to do his job of providing the island with good government and enabling it to think carefully and wisely what it wants in future, will be


regarded as our friends, and Her Majesty's Commissioner will work with them.

Mr. Albu: Does my right hon. Friend mean that in future, whenever we disapprove of the kind of people who are trying to sell their services to a Government in an Associated State, we shall be entitled to intervene? Also, may I ask what are the British interests involved?

Mr. Stewart: I think that my hon. Friend is stretching this beyond all reason. Let us stick to the facts of the case. This was part of an Associated State for whose external relations we were responsible. Events had so developed that it was going to be impossible for us to carry out that responsibility until good government was restored in Anguilla, and, above all, the Anguillans were given a chance to express their real wishes free from intimidation.
As to British interests, it was here even more a question of the clear legal responsibility of this Government to carry out their responsibilities for the external relations of this Associated State. Beyond that Britain has a very great interest in the stability and progress of the whole Caribbean area.

Mr. Turton: If, as the Foreign Secretary says, the Government of St. Kitts agreed to this, surely force was quite unnecessary? The right hon. Gentleman could have proceeded under Section 9 of the West Indies Act and made that change of status without this quite unnecessary invasion. Does not this demonstrate the weakness of the whole system of associated status, and will the right hon. Gentleman seek to amend the West Indies Act?

Mr. Stewart: I think that we would all accept that the concept of associated status has difficulties, but I am not prepared to say that we must regard them at this stage as irretrievable weaknesses. Nor do I wish to talk about amendment of the Act.
On the other part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State went to the island with these proposals. We believed that it was right, though conscious of certain risks, that he should go there without

any show of force whatever so that the Anguillans should have the opportunity, without anyone being able to accuse us of duress, of saying what they really wanted.
The evidence from that visit clearly was that the great majority of Anguillans wanted these proposals, but they were being frustrated by a small armed minority. I believe that it was our duty, in those circumstances, to make quite clear that the armed minority was not going to have its way. For that reason, it was necessary, and I believe right, to send a force which, though by no means gigantic, would be of sufficient size to make quite sure that the armed minority would not have its way and that the people of Anguilla would come into their own.

Mr. George Brown: Two things occur to me. I make no objection to the timing of the statement, but I think that the House will want time to read it in full. However, there are two things which I should like to put to my right hon. Friend—

Hon. Members: Question.

Mr. Brown: I want to put these things to my right hon. Friend. There is a question.
The first point that I should like to put to my right hon. Friend in the form of a question—I do not know how else to put it—is: are there not some contradictions in the statement that he has made? How can we assure the Anguillans that it is no part of our purpose, as my hon. Friend said yesterday, to arrange that they should be under an administration that they do not want to be under if at the same time he says, in the same statement, that we have done this at the request, and with the support, of the St. Kitts Government, the administration that they do not want to be under? May I ask how we can persuade anybody that one half of that statement does not contradict the other?
My second question, to me much the more important, is: on the basis of the arguments that it seemed to me my right hon. Friend was using in his statement today, how, at the United Nations, whether in the Anti-Colonial Committee, the Committee of Twenty-four or in the Assembly itself, are we going to answer


those who demand that we should do exactly the same on exactly the same grounds elsewhere? Are we to say that we can do it where there is only a rusty gun, but we cannot do it elsewhere, and our principles are decided by our estimate of the strength required?

Mr. Stewart: On the first point, it is quite true that I stated it is no part of our purpose that the Anguillans should live under an administration that they do not want. I also stated that what we have done is with the agreement of the Government of St. Kitts. But we made clear to the Government of St. Kitts that in going there they must understand that it was no part of our purpose to make the Anguillans live under a régime that they do not want. The part of my statement which I think my right hon. Friend did not notice and which provides the answer is where I pointed out that the Government of St. Kitts realise the strength of feeling in Anguilla against its connection with St. Kitts. So in effect— and this is understood by us, by St. Kitts and by Anguilla—we are in a situation where everyone realises that the Anguillans do not like being part of this Associated State.
However, I am not prepared to say what the situation will be after a number of years when the Administrator has done his work. I should make it clear to the House that while the military presence there will be very brief, it is the case—and this is also understood by the Government of St. Kitts—that the administrator, Her Majesty's Commissioner, will be there for some time. It is his job to work out, if it can possibly be done, an agreement that will satisfy all parties, including the Anguillans. What the exact nature of that settlement will be I do not think I or anyone else can predict. What we are all agreed on is that what is needed now is this breathing space.
I think that the second part of my right hon. Friend's question, put in plain terms, is "If you send a small force to Anguilla, why do you not try to solve the Rhodesian question by force?". I believe that when one considers the use of armed force it is right to consider what the results of using it would be, what the destruction of life and wealth would be. I believe that an attempt to solve the Rhodesian

question by force would have resulted in such a destruction of life and wealth, and such embitterment throughout Africa, that the thing we surely all want in Rhodesia, a just régime for men of all colours of skin, would have been indefinitely postponed. Whatever one may say about the law, and the morality of it, in effect the result would have been disastrous. It seems to me that one can properly reach that decision, and still say that it is sensible to send a moderate force to enable the people of Anguilla to express their views freely and not be intimidated by a handful of people.

Mr. Heath: If I understood the right hon. Gentleman's statement aright, the Government have imposed direct rule on this island by force. The grounds on which the Government justify this action are that it was necessary for the external defence of the island. This will, I think, to say the least, require careful consideration, but the questions which I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman are concerned with the future.
The right hon. Gentleman has constantly emphasised, quite rightly, that it is not the Government's purpose to see the Anguillans living under an administration they do not want. What steps are the Government going to take at the earliest possible moment to enable the Anguillans to choose the administration under which they want to live?
The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of a period of several years of direct rule. If the Anguillans do not want to live under the direct rule of the British Government in Whitehall, why does this situation have to continue for several years? Surely the Government should devote their attention to the means of ascertaining the wishes of the islanders, whatever those wishes may be?
Finally, does the right hon. Gentleman maintain that this form of Associated State must remain as it is, or can the Anguillans have a real choice as to the form of administration under which they want to live?

Mr. Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman said that we had imposed direct rule by force. I do not quarrel with the phrase "direct rule", but when one uses the phrase "by force" one must take into account the fact—and this is quite clear—that we have not done this


against the wishes of the great majority of Anguillans. The force was necessary only because the wishes of the great majority were being frustrated by a few. I have no doubt at all that both what has happened to date and what will happen in the future will demonstrate that that is so.
As to the future, in the first instance it will be the task of Her Majesty's Commissioner to assemble for himself an advisory council from Anguillans, and to proceed as soon as possible to get this on an elected basis.
The right hon. Gentleman will remember what I said in my statement about the attempts which have been made to reach an agreement acceptable to all the parties. I think that we shall have to try again to see whether that can be achieved, but I am sure that I am right in not trying to predict to the House now the final outcome of this, because the one thing on which I think we are all agreed—St. Kitts, the Anguillans, Her Majesty's Government, and the Caribbean states—is that the right step for the present is that Her Majesty's Commissioner should do the job with the increasing participation of the Anguillans, and we may be able to judge better in a calmer and more peaceful atmosphere what is the right solution for the future.

Mr. David Steel: Will the Commissioner on Anguilla be subject to the right hon. Gentleman's directions or to directions from the St. Kitts Government? Can the right hon. Gentleman say a little more about the political future which must follow a military initiative? Will he take the precedent of the Central African Federation and consider a commission on Monckton lines, and then leave the people of Anguilla to determine whether they find any proposed solution acceptable?

Mr. Stewart: Her Majesty's Commissioner will be subject to directions from London. That is understood all round.
On the second point, I think we should hesitate to try to draw an analogy between this part of the world and Central Africa, or indeed many other parts. I think that Her Majesty's Commissioner must be given a chance to get on with his job before we start being too dogmatic about the future.

Mr. George Brown: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is not quite clear to him on reflection that I did not argue for the use of force in Rhodesia? What I asked was, having defended ourselves for not using force there on moral principles, how we could now defend ourselves, when all we are arguing now is that the opposition to overcome was small, whereas in the other case it was big.

Mr. Stewart: I do not believe that my answer is in any way disreputable or unprincipled. Whenever one decides or thinks of using force one must ask what the objections are, and how much misery and distress will be caused in the using of it. It is clear, fortunately, on this occasion that no misery or distress has been caused, and that I believe justifies the step which we have taken. To use it in Rhodesia would, for the reasons I gave earlier, be a completely different operation.

Mr. Crawshaw: Does my right hon. Friend realise that many hon. Members on this side of the House appreciate the action that is being taken and pay tribute to him, but may I ask whether he would have settled the problem out there had he started by saying that under no circumstances would we ever use force, as we did in Rhodesia? Whatever we think in this House, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many people throughout the world think that we have double standards, depending on whether it is black or white that we are dealing with?

Mr. Stewart: I know that that argument is used. As I understand it, my hon. Friend is quoting it as an argument that is used by others, and it is not one that he himself advances. I say to my hon. Friend, and to anyone who advances that argument, "If you weigh up the costs, the results, the actual effect of attempting to solve the Rhodesian question by force, you will reach one answer. If you are then asked whether it was right to make this very modest display of force in order to give the 6,000 inhabitants of this island the opportunity to express their real wishes, I believe that the answer must be yes".

Mr. Birch: Will the right hon. Gentleman convey to the Prime Minister the congratulations of the House on at last taking on somebody of his own size?

Mr. Stewart: As to size, I think that that question illustrates the contrast between the greatness of the issues involved here and the littleness of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Woodburn: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that there is an analogy in Africa from the fact that Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania, when they were faced with armed insurrection inside their own countries, requested us to send troops there and that we did that without any of the objection which has been offered today?

Mr. Stewart: That is so. It seems to me that the decision of a Government to use, or even to consider the use of, armed force is one of the gravest decisions that a Government can take. If one is always so terrified of the results, one always answers "No". One may have to put up with the growth of disorder and danger throughout the world. If one uses it recklessly, one may cause misery and loss of life for no adequate return. I tried to judge in this issue what degree of force it was necessary to prepare to use. I rejoice greatly that it went no further than preparation.

Mr. Tapsell: Would the right hon. Gentleman accept that some of us who know this area and the personalities involved fairly well will feel that, after the events of last week, the actions which the Government have taken have been absolutely right and inevitable? But would he also re-emphasise the Government's policy of consulting the Anguillan people at an early date about their future and not assuming that a mere passage of time and change of personalities will change the feelings between Anguilla and St. Kitts?

Mr. Stewart: I am grateful to the hon. Member for the first part of his question. I fully accept and understand the rest of what he said.

Mr. Whitaker: While the House is convinced of the necessity and right of removing a disreputable armed minority in Rhodesia and allowing the people there self-determination, are we fully satisfied that our movements in Anguilla are in accordance with the principles of the United Nations, and has that organisation been consulted?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, I think that there is no doubt that what we have done here is in accord with the United Nations Charter and our legal responsibilities.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

Mr. Faulds: On a point of order. Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that your myopia has now become so acute and so partisan—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has gone far enough—

Mr. Faulds: I had not finished.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wants to criticise the Chair, he can do so by putting a Motion down on the Order Paper. He must not insult the Chair in the way that he has done. I must ask him to withdraw what he has said.

Mr. Faulds: Will you explain to me, Mr. Speaker, how I can withdraw a remark which happens to be—

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not asking the hon. Gentleman to accept an explanation. I am instructing him to withdraw what he said.

Mr. Faulds: You have me across a barrel, Mr. Speaker. I have no choice but to withdraw, which I do under protest. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has withdrawn, even if under protest.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY DISPUTE (SETTLEMENT)

4.13 p.m.

The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mrs. Barbara Castle): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Ford dispute.
I am glad to be able to tell the House that the Ford strike is now over.
When I last reported to the House, on 12th March, talks had broken down at


my Department following the rejection by the trade union side of the Ford N.J.N.C. of the company's proposals for a resumption of work and their insistence on a prior commitment by the company that the pay increases in the package deal would be improved. In an effort to resolve this deadlock, I invited company representatives, Mr. Jones of the Transport and General Workers Union and Mr. Scanlon of the A.E.F.—the two major unions in dispute with the company—and Mr. Cannon of the E.E.T.U., one of the unions which had supported the February package deal, to discuss the situation with me last weekend.
As a result of these discussions, joint talks were resumed on 15th March, and on Saturday night the following formula was agreed for recommendation to the full trade union side of the N.J.N.C. the following day:

1. Normal working will be resumed on the basis of the increased rates in the agreement which commenced on 1st March, 1969.
2. Additional holiday benefit and lay-off benefit and their qualifying clauses shall be held in abeyance pending re-negotiation but alternatives have been agreed in principle which will ensure continuity of production and payments not less than those proposed in the agreement referred to above.
3. The company has agreed that it withdraws its requirement of 21 days' strike notice.

At the outset of the discussions on Sunday, 16th March, however, a difference arose between the company on the one side and Mr. Scanlon and Mr. Jones on the other on a central point in the alternative arrangements for financing the layoff benefit and holiday bonus which it was believed had been agreed in principle: the unions insisting that the holiday bonus of £25 which the firm had offered should be paid in full to all employees irrespective of whether they had engaged in unconstitutional industrial action or whether the payments by the company into the fund, which were themselves dependent on freedom from unconstitutional action, were sufficient for the purpose.
After two days of intensive discussions on this and related points, an outline

holiday bonus and lay-off benefit scheme to replace the corresponding provisions of the February package deal was agreed. The scheme is in two parts: first, the company has undertaken to set up a fund on a company-wide basis into which it will pay 4s. per employee per week in order to finance lay-off benefit. In any week in which unconstitutional action takes place in any plant, no payment will be made into the fund in respect of any employee in that plant. This sum of 4s. per employee per week should in all normal circumstances be more than sufficient to meet the outgoings and the surplus will be available to improve the benefits in the second part of the scheme.
Under this, a second fund will be created on a plant basis for the payment of a holiday bonus. This will be financed by weekly contributions by the company of 10s. per employee, which, in the same way, will not be payable in the event of any unconstitutional action in the plant. Subject to a guaranteed minimum of £15, the size of the holiday bonus payable to employees will, therefore, vary according to the extent to which plants have been affected by, and individual employees have taken part in, unconstitutional industrial action.
This outline scheme and the basis for a resumption of work agreed on 15th March were accepted yesterday by the executive of the A.E.F., the trade union side of the N.J.N.C. and by a Transport and General Workers Union delegate conference. The unions agreed to recommend a return to work today, with the exception of the Transport and General Workers Union, which, by resolution of the union's delegate conference, recommended a full return tomorrow in order to allow union officials to explain the settlement at meetings of strikers today.
I understand that production in Ford plants has restarted this morning. The House will be relieved that this protracted and damaging dispute, which has resulted in a loss of between £30 and £40 million of production, half of it for export, and nearly £3½ million loss of wages for Ford employees, is at an end, and I hope that there will be a speedy and complete return to work.

Mr. Maudling: The House is, of course, relieved indeed to know that there has been an end to this appalling strike.


But, just because of the consequences, not only economic but also in terms of general industrial relations, we shall clearly wish to assess the basis on which it has been settled. May I ask the right hon. Lady about two points of Government responsibility, to neither of which she referred in her statement? The first is the incomes policy. The right hon. Lady assured the House in the previous stage of this dispute that proposals had been costed and fell within the Government's incomes policy. Can she give a similar assurance that these proposals are entirely within the ambit of that policy? Second, what action do the Government intend to take to prevent this happening again in future?

Mrs. Castle: The answer to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is that the February package deal—which, as I told the House, was costed and approved under the incomes policy—stands, except for the dropping of the 21 days' notice of strike after the procedure has been exhausted and the replacement of what were then called the penal clauses by a new financial arrangement of lay-off benefit and holiday bonus.
The company has assured me that the new scheme gives an equivalent expectation of continuity of production. This is an important element in the savings in that the productivity clauses of the deal, which still stand, give us an equivalent assurance that the saving will exceed the costing.

Mr. Maudling: Would the right hon. Lady now answer my second question; what action does she propose to take in the light of this experience to minimise the danger of a similar experience occurring in future?

Mrs. Castle: I am glad to tell the House that an important part of this matter is a greatly improved and speedier disputes procedure. This is one of the lessons that must be learned from this strike. I understand that the unions are, among themselves, considering a reform of the trade union side of the National Joint Negotiating Committee. This action will, I think, be of help, together with the incentives, now incorporated in the scheme, against taking unconstitutional action. There are now to be both collective and individual incentives to talk instead of to strike.

Mr. Orme: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the workers and trade unions in this dispute have been much maligned and that little criticism has been directed against the Ford management? Is she also aware that the Ford management has hidden behind the incomes criteria and that many people feel that these criteria, put forward by her Department, have delayed a settlement of this dispute; that they have promulgated it when it could have been resolved more easily?

Mrs. Castle: I do not believe that my hon. Friend is being fair about this. During the course of these discussions, I have avoided making attacks on either side. The key factor in this dispute has not been the level of wage claims but the inclusion of what the unions insisted on calling penal clauses, which were part of the quid pro quo for the layoff benefit, and holiday bonus, which they wanted.
The argument during the past few days has been intensively over those principles. The firm, on its own judgment, laid great store on them because it is anxious to get production up—that is the only way to get wages up—and because it can do that only if the resort to unconstitutional action is reduced.

Mr. Heath: The right hon. Lady rightly said that while this dispute was continuing she refrained from commenting on it in the interests of getting a settlement. Would she agree that this has been one of the most damaging disputes with an individual firm that this country has suffered in the last 25 years?
As she has made a few comments, as she just said, would she and her Department now do an analysis of the causes of the dispute and the conclusions which she has reached as a result of it? The right hon. Lady said that the House would naturally be relieved to hear that the dispute was at an end. Perhaps we have all too often passed a heavy sigh of relief, sat back and moved on to the next business.
Is she aware that an analysis of the matter, along with her conclusions, in a White Paper would greatly help progress in industrial relations generally? If she feels unable to do this, will she set up an independent authority to do it for her?

Mrs. Castle: I, of course, agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this has been an extremely damaging dispute; damaging to all concerned. The Ford workers have lost a great deal, as has the country as well as the firm.
As for making an analysis of the causes, one has only to live through the negotiations which have taken place over a dispute of this kind to get a good running day-to-day analysis of the causes and difficulties. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer".] Of course I shall consider the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion. I will see whether a White Paper would be helpful in this situation.
However, I really think that I must take into consideration in this matter the views of both sides in this dispute. They are anxious to heal their industrial relations. The firm is hopeful that it can get on to a basis in which this kind of dispute cannot recur, and it would be wrong of us to ignore its advice and views in this situation.

Mr. James Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend confirm the reports we read about Ford workers being the lowest paid in the car industry?
As for the activities of the negotiating committee, will they in future be endorsed by the unions at national level to ensure that any agreements arrived at are on a basis which will enable them to be honoured by both sides?

Mrs. Castle: My hon. Friend should not jump to the conclusion that the rates here are the lowest in the car industry. I know that certain figures have been published, but they have tended to compare Ford rates, which are uniform rates, with the highest rates in other companies, which may have a range of rates going very much lower. Taking that factor and other fringe benefits into account, the task of making a comparison is not a simple and straightforward one.
To answer my hon. Friend's question about the reform of the negotiating committee, I said that one of the lessons to be learned from this dispute was that the N.J.N.C. situation needed reforming to give better representation to the larger unions. As far as I know, no union is contesting this. It seems that this is a matter for the union side to put straight

and I believe that that side is anxious, just as we all are, to avoid a repetition of the unfortunate events of the past few weeks.

Mr. Lubbock: Will the right hon. Lady lose no opportunity of underlining the grave damage which this dispute has done to our economy, since there may be many workers who engage in unconstitutional action of this kind who do not see the consequences of their action in one industry to the national economy as a whole?
Reverting to the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition, and since the right hon. Lady mentioned that the disputes procedure was thought to be ineffective and that some revision of the machinery of the N.J.N.C. was being contemplated, will she at least make a fuller statement on these two matters?

Mrs. Castle: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is that I have lost no opportunity, in the Press and on television, to stress the economic implications of this matter. I believe that all those involved are well aware of them.
I will certainly consider, to answer the second part, if there is an opportunity for me to convey to the House the progress that has been made under those two headings.

Mr. Ford: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of her hon. Friends congratulate her on the part she has played in mediating in this dispute?
Will she consider publishing in the OFFICIAL REPORT the details of both the original agreement, about which the negotiations broke down, and the recent agreement so that hon. Members and the public generally may judge whether or not a somewhat Pyrrhic victory has been obtained?

Mrs. Castle: To answer the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I have set out quite fully in my statement the details of the final agreement. I appreciate that these details are difficult to absorb on first hearing, but they are on the record for study.
To answer the first part, I will certainly consider whether it is possible to make a comparison with the original package deal.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the kind things he said about me.

Mr. John Page: Does the right hon. Lady realise that in her statement she said that the expectation of continuity of production had been added to the other criteria against which wage increases should be judged? If this is the case, can that be applied to other wage increase propositions that are put to her?

Mrs. Castle: The saving from the point of view of continuity of production always forms part of the costing of a package deal, just as it forms part of this one. All that I would add on this question is that I must consider all settlements on their merits; and I certainly will do so.

Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that it is now quite clear that workers will not accept penal clauses in this or an other industry, and will she, therefore, resist the siren voices from this side and the other side asking her to bring in the proposals contained in the White Paper at the earliest possible moment? Is it not clear that her efforts on this occasion, which have been mainly conciliatory, have been far more sensible and have helped to solve this dispute rather than any suggestion of the future imposition of clauses which would not be acceptable to the trade union movement?

Mrs. Castle: I believe, generally, that the use of emotive words has been one of the contributory causes of this strike. By labelling these arrangements for financing lay-off bonus and holiday bonus as "penal clauses" feeling has been aroused quite unjustifiably. The firm calls them "bonus clauses", and we still have bonus clauses in the agreement. It is true that they are different in incidence to a certain extent, but the fact still remains that there can be both a collective and an individual loss of benefit under these proposals. One may call them what one likes, but the fact is that, after having stirred up a lot of feeling about the so-called "penal clauses", the unions have, in some cases

unanimously, accepted this scheme, which has similar provisions in it.
I would say to my hon. Friend that the lesson as far as the legislation I am proposing is concerned is exactly the same. A lot of misunderstanding has been aroused against it by the use of emotive words, and I hope that the lesson of this strike is that people will look behind the slogans to the reality and the merits of the case. I am confident that when that happens the trade union movement will come to accept my legislation as a whole.

Mr. Crouch: May I put to the right hon. Lady that she does have the advantage over other hon. Members of the House and over members of the public in having been very close to this dispute? I am sure all hon. Members are grateful to her for the part she has played in bringing this dispute to a final conclusion; but I would support the contention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that this House and the public would greatly benefit by the publication of the details such as she herself has seen, since they are greatly bewildered by what has been going on to the great distress and disaster of the country.

Mrs. Castle: I appreciate that this was a very serious, major dispute, which had some new and interesting aspects to it. I will consider whether there is any way in which an analysis can be published, but I repeat that I must bear in mind the industrial relations factor here, and not jeopardise them.

Mr. Horner: Would my right hon. Friend accept from me a warning, wholly deficient, I hope, in emotive words, that she should draw no hard conclusions about the outcome of the Ford strike in relation to the attitude of the trade union movement to her White Paper?

Mrs. Castle: I am still having difficulty in convincing my hon. Friend of the merits of that White Paper and of the legislation which will be based upon it. I still have not given up hope of converting him.

AGRICULTURE (ANNUAL PRICE REVIEW)

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement about this year's Annual Farm Price Review, details of which are in a White Paper which is available in the Vote Office. As a result of the bad harvest weather in many parts of the country cereals production has fallen. This has been one of the main causes of the fall-back last year both of net output and net income. Costs are up by £40 million, and the gain normally expected from greater productivity was not realised in full. But with average conditions this year, output, productivity and income are expected to improve.
The Government have made it clear that they wish a selective expansion of agriculture to continue on the basis of rising productivity. Beef and pigs, wheat and barley are the commodities where expansion is wanted. We need more acres in cereals, more livestock on a smaller grassland acreage, and more pigs both for pork and bacon.
The Government have considered this year's Review against this agricultural background, and against the difficult economic situation with which the country is faced. I now turn to the determinations.
On beef, the dairy herd is increasing fast enough to meet our objective, but the rate of expansion of the beef herd is slowing down. We are, therefore, making a substantial increase of 15s. per cwt. on the price, and increasing the beef cow and hill cow subsidy each by £1, while making a neutral determination on milk. This will avoid stimulating too rapid an expansion of milk production, while dairy farmers will, of course, get the benefit of higher prices for their calves. Moreover, as I have already announced, we are giving greater stability to the milk products market through the agreement on voluntary restraint on cheese imports reached with our major suppliers.
Pig production is increasing, and to maintain this trend we are raising the guaranteed price for pigs by 6d. a score and increasing by 400,000 the number of

pigs to which this higher price will apply. As I have said, we want more wheat and barley. So we are raising the guaranteed price for wheat by 1s. 7d. to 29s. per cwt., and barley by 10d. to 26s. per cwt. We are also abolishing the standard quantity for barley. These changes come on top of the large increases made on these commodities last year.
For the remainder, we are putting 1½d. per 1b. on sheep which, with last year's increase, will assist the industry to secure our objective of maintaining production. We are also leaving the wool price unchanged. Our aim of self-sufficiency for main crop potatoes is being secured, but because of the cost increase on such a labour intensive crop, we are putting 5s. a ton on the price. In accordance with our announced policy of phasing out the subsidy over five years, we are making the maximum cut on eggs. Oats and sugar beet, where we are not seeking expansion, will still be unchanged. To contain rising expenditure, the fertiliser subsidy rate will be reduced by £3 million, but expenditure will still be over £30 million a year.
The increase that we are putting on the four commodities where expansion is wanted, namely beef and pigs, wheat and barley is about £37 million, so giving a significant injection of capital and an incentive on top of costs for these commodities. This is a positive review giving the necessary encouragement where it is needed. The net effect is to increase the value of the guarantees by £34 million.

Mr. Godber: It will obviously be necessary to debate this hopelessly inadequate award. At this stage, therefore, I content myself by asking two or three short questions. First, will the Minister confirm that the leaders of the industry have refused in any way to agree to or condone this award? Secondly, in view of the heavy fall in farmers' incomes this year, does he really believe that the award he has just announced is going to match the objectives of the expansion plan which he announced in this House on 12th November last? And if he does think that, will he please explain to the House now, clearly and simply, where the financial resources for expansion are to come from? If he cannot do that, will he now resign?

Mr. Hughes: It is correct to say that the Farmers' Unions have not agreed the Review, but the right hon. Gentleman


knows from his experience that he had two disagreed Reviews when he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry. Of course, it is important that this Review should match up to the statement I made in November. [HON. MEMBERS: "It does not."] This is precisely what it is doing. On the three major commodities beef, cereals and pigs, there is recoupment of cost plus an injection of capital. This should be adequate to get movement going. This is the best award for beef for 20 years, and certainly better than anything the Opposition did. On the question of resignation, in view of the profound disagreement of the farmers with the policy which the right hon. Gentleman has been enunciating over the last few months, he should have left the Opposition Front Bench a long time ago.

Mr. Tudor Watkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am not anxious that he should resign from hispost? Will he say how this Review matches the unanimous and specific conclusions of the Select Committee on Agriculture, which reported recently?

Mr. Hughes: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. The Select Committee, of which he was Chairman, did valuable work. I think he will agree on reading the White Paper that, as to import substitution, our determinations on the priority commodities match very well the recommendations of the Committee over which he presided.

Mr. Thorpe: Since the Price Review starts by under-recouping farmers' costs by £6 million and, in view of rising costs, is not likely to produce any net overall income increase, can the Minister say how he regards this as a contribution to saving £160 million imports by 1972–73? Can he assure us that this is a Review which will restore confidence for expansion in the industry, and provide it with adequate resources to do it? Will he be surprised to know that very few take that view?

Mr. Hughes: What I announced was that this is an expansion programme. The right hon. Gentleman will realise when he talks to farmers in his constituency that they have read the White Paper more carefully than he will have done and that they will have listened far more carefully to the statement I made on the major commodities of beef, wheat and pigs.

This is a very good award indeed, a positive award which will get the desired movement. I think the right hon. Gentleman is doing the industry no service by being so gloomy about the future.

Mr. Hazell: While personally regretting that the Government have not found it possible to concede greater financial support for the industry, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his reported efforts in this direction? Have the Government taken into account the recommendation of the Select Committee on Agriculture that the outflow of workers from the industry should be reduced?

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The outflow of workers from the industry is, of course, a matter which we are watching very carefully. The decisions which have been made in the Review, especially for cereals, beef and pigs, should benefit the whole industry. We should recognise the outstanding record of agricultural workers whom my hon. Friend represents so ably. The broad trend in labour productivity in the agriculture industry is for continued growth at the rate of 6 per cent. or 7 per cent. a year, which is about twice that in the rest of the economy. This the House should know.

Mr. John Wells: Paragraph 63 gives the proposed rate of the fertiliser subsidy. We were told on Monday that the Agricultural Training Board is probably to be financed in future out of the fertiliser subsidy. Does that indicate a further cut in the subsidy not yet announced? In paragraph 19 we see the decline in farm income. Can the Minister say what is the departmental overhead per farm today?

Mr. Hughes: I cannot answer that, but the underlying trend of farm income is, of course, upwards. On the question of fertiliser subsidy diminution, there is nothing different. Successive Governments and Ministers have kept the fertiliser subsidy under control. It remains high and is today £30 million a year.

Mr. Maclennan: Will my right hon. Friend accept that, at least in Scotland, this Price Review will be regarded by farmers as helpful for the livestock sector, and that it compares extremely favourably with Price Reviews under right hon. Gentlemen opposite in that respect?


Nonetheless, the agricultural industry's expectations have been considerably raised by my right hon. Friend's statement in November, and we shall hope and expect that he will continue to make available resources for a major expansion of this vitally important import-saving industry.

Mr. Hughes: I am quite sure that, as a result of this Review, the major priority commodities will move on course and there will be an advance. I appreciate what my hon. Friend said about the Scottish farmer. I certainly agree that the Scottish farmer will appreciate the award, particularly on beef and sheep.

Mr. Stodart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chairman of the Governors of the North of Scotland College said that 40 per cent. of all farm accounts costed by his Department, many of which must be in the constituency of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), earned last year less than a farm worker's wage, making no allowance at all for return on capital? Will he explain, in view of that, how by under-recouping the industry he will get further production from them?

Mr. Hughes: I have not read the report to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. I am sure it is an important one, but the hon. Member must look at the individual commodities mentioned in the White Paper and the way in which they are dealt with. He referred to global totals, but he must look at what is being done for beef, cereals, sheep and pigs. If he reads that carefully he will come to the conclusion that this is very good

Mr. Ensor: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on an extremely good Review. As usual, there have been tears of blood from hon. Members opposite. In spite of the fact that I agree that this is an excellent award, may I ask how the Review will affect farmers in hills and uplands?

Mr. Hughes: I think this will be regarded as a positive and helpful Review by the farmers in the hills and uplands of Scotland, England and Wales, particularly the emphasis on beef, the hill cow subsidy and the beef cow subsidy, which will be welcome for them.

Sir A. V. Harvey: To what extent has the Minister taken into account high interest rates on borrowed money, bearing in mind that Bank Rate went up only a week ago and what he said about the dairy industry, which will leave the farmers of Cheshire in utter despair?

Mr. Hughes: I think the intelligent farmers of Cheshire will appreciate what I have done in relation to milk and will give a particular welcome to the fact that we have at last reached agreement on voluntary restraint on cheese. So far as the interest rate is a factor, it is taken into account.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Allowing for increased costs and efficiency, can my right hon. Friend say how the determinations for 1964–1969 inclusive compare in value with those for the previous five years?

Mr. Hughes: I think I can give the figure—[Interruption.]—I think I can reply to that question without referring to any paper. It is well known that, apart from my right hon. Friend's Review of 1967 and the pre-election Review of 1964, this is the best Review for 20 years. It is better than any of the 12 Reviews of the party opposite leading up to the 1964 Review.

Mr. Henry Clark: How much will it cost to pay the increased subsidy on beef to Southern Ireland under the Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement? What steps has the Minister taken to make sure that the increased payments reach the Southern Irish farmer and do not create a subsidy for Southern Ireland meat factories?

Mr. Hughes: I apologise for the fact that I cannot give the answer to the first part of that question without notice, but the hon. Member will know that I am in close consultation on this issue with the Minister of Agriculture in Northern Ireland and the Southern Irish Government.

Mr. Ednyfed Hudson Davies: I thank my hon. Friend for a Review which is clearly not without substantial benefits for Wales. What effect does he expect the Review to have on the cost of food?

Mr. Hughes: I much appreciate the question, because I am glad to have the opportunity to say that this imposes no cost whatsoever on the consumer or on the housewife.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Does not the Minister realise that the great difference between this and previous Reviews is that this Review follows great undertakings by him that agriculture would be allowed to expand? As he has not given that expansion and as he has not been able to fulfil his personal promises, will he confirm that his own hopes have been thwarted by the Treasury?

Mr. Hughes: I have answered this question once or twice before. If the hon. Gentleman will have the goodness to read the White Paper and my statement again tomorrow, he will find that for beef this is the best award for 20 years. Therefore, surely we will see an advance on beef. It is a most important factor in the Review. For cereals, we have an award which comprises recoupment of costs and incentive. For pigs, we are raising the top and lower ends of the middle band by 400,000, and 6d. a score, together with the stabiliser, and the new bacon market sharing understanding should put the pig industry on a firmer foundation than it has ever had before.

Dr. Dunwoody: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, to achieve the selective expansion programme, we need, not only to increase investment in the industry, but also significantly to improve the wages of agricultural workers? Does my right hon. Friend think that this Review will enable the industry to do this?

Mr. Hughes: The award to agricultural workers was recently approved. It was very important that it should have been. I am constantly watching the position of agricultural workers. In this context, the Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry Industry Training Board is important. Having said that, however, I fully appreciate that the position of workers in the industry must be kept under constant review, as must the contribution they make. The way to give

them new status is, not only through education, but by ensuring that the industry itself is more efficient and makes a profit.

Mr. Hawkins: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned average weather conditions this year. Does he consider that in the cereal-growing areas we are likely to have anything like average conditions in view of the bad start we have already had this year? Why cannot we expand the sugar beet industry? With imports of about 50,000 tons of refined foreign, non-Commonwealth sugar, is there not a place for the expansion of the home sugar beet industry?

Mr. Hughes: I agree that the sugar beet industry is important. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the recently renewed Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. It is important to keep the balance between home production and what we import under that Agreement.

Mr. Anderson: My right hon. Friend's statement contained no reference to his thinking about the system of agricultural financing. Has he any proposals to modify or change the system of agricultural financing?

Mr. Hughes: I have no immediate intention of changing the structure of agricultural financing. It is important that the way in which the support system for the industry works should be examined. I am presently discussing the means of streamlining and rationalising the present system of grants and subsidies with a view to increasing efficiency, to reducing administrative costs, and to lessening the burden of paper work on farmers—an important factor. I am also working on improvements in the flow of technical and economic information from research worker to farmer.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must move on.

MENTAL HEALTH ACT 1959 (AMENDMENT)

Mrs. Knight: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend sections 60 and 65 of the Mental Health Act, 1959.
Sections 60 and 65 of the Mental Health Act, 1959, are those which allow for persons suffering from mental disorders who have been convicted in the courts to be admitted to mental hospitals or placed under the guardianship of a local health authority. These are not the only Sections concerning this type of patient. Section 72 is also involved to a lesser extent, since it deals with the transfer to mental hospitals of persons undergoing a sentence of imprisonment. However, the main problem for mental hospitals concerns Sections 60 and 65, since under these Sections a person may be admitted straight from the courts— admittedly after a medical examination, but before any experience has been gained as to the likely behaviour of that person when placed under duress.
In recent years a much more enlightened policy towards mentally sick people has led to what is termed the open-door mental hospital. The days when wild-eyed lunatics with matted hair and unwashed bodies were penned behind bars unseen and forgotten by all except those whose fearsome duty it was to care for them are dead, gone, and un-lamented. A visitor to a mental hospital today will go through open entrance gates and see the patients walking about normally, mostly free to leave the hospital whenever they wish. In fact, it is often difficult to tell who are the patients and who are the visitors. This policy contributes enormously to the large numbers of cures effected.
When convicted criminals are placed in this environment, the law asks mental hospitals to turn back the clock, lock the doors again, and take measures to become in part little prisons. The case of the mentally ill schizophrenic convicted of minor larceny offences and then sent to a mental hospital may not be so obviously difficult, because if he walks out, although he may be a menace to local shopkeepers, he will not be a danger to the public. The trouble with him is that he will probably not remain in the hospital long enough to get the treatment

he needs for his condition. The case of the rapist or aggressive psychopath is quite another matter. If he gets out, he constitutes a real and terrible danger to innocent people outside. On the other hands, if he stays in, it might well be said that he constitutes a similar danger to the innocent patients inside.
The Medical Director of All Saints Hospital in Winson Green, Birmingham, Dr. Norman Imlah, is a man who is much respected and admired for his work and experience both in All Saints and other mental hospitals. He recently gave a most serious warning that potentially dangerous patients can easily get out of Britain's mental hospitals. He has been joined in this opinion by other distinguished doctors and psychiatrists who feel a similar concern about the situation. We ignore the warning of these men at our peril.
Originally it was felt with some justification that it would be quite feasible to expect every mental hospital to provide some sort of special security section within the hospital to contain these patients. At present the Ministry places this responsibility on regional hospital boards which, in their turn, exert pressures on individual hospitals. Many hospitals do retain locked wards for this purpose. Others, where the locked door policy has been abandoned, cope with this problem as best they can by recruiting special supervisory staff.
It is becoming increasingly clear that these arrangements cannot work much longer. Medical and nursing staff detest having to be jailers one minute and nurses the next. Further, the retention of special security accommodation in hospitals has a very bad effect on the other patients in the hospital. As Dr. Imlah says, "If we are running a hospital of which people can have no fear, and to which they will come when they are in need of help, we simply cannot provide maximum security".
There are only four State security institutions in the country—Broadmoor, Rampton, Moss Side and Carstairs in Scotland. They are all crammed, bursting at the seams. There is only a slender chance of having a potentially dangerous patient put into one of them. What happens? The court is told that the man before it is mentally ill but there is no


room for him in the State security institutions. If the mental hospital flatly refuses to have him, he will have to go to prison, for there is no other place. Prisons are not hospitals, and it is most unlikely that he can receive in prison the medical treatment which he so desperately needs, and it is treatment, which may one day enable him to be rehabilitated in society.
Clearly, a third category of establishment is needed, not a Broadmoor and not a mental hospital but somewhere to which criminally convicted persons who are suffering from mental disorder may be sent and treated and yet be kept secure. Two consultant forensic psychiatrists holding appointments under the Home Office and the National Health Service, Dr. Westbury of Newcastle and Dr. Bluglass of Birmingham, have suggested the setting up of 100-bed special security units purpose-built to deal with this grave problem. Dr. Donald West, assistant director of research at the Cambridge University Institute of Criminology, also takes the view that there is a crying need for this sort of third unit. He points out in a recent article that other countries which have set up such units claim considerable success from them.
Of course, the bugbear of cost raises its head. We live in a "bread-line" Britain. Nevertheless, the problem will have to be tackled, and tackled soon. If the Bill is given a chance to continue on its way, I shall seek to establish plans whereby we may consider the building of such units, and I shall even try to suggest where economies can be made to help pay for them. Today, I ask only that the House recognise the problem and agree to consider a cure.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Jill Knight, Mr. W. F. Deedes, Mr. Angus Maude, Mr. Boyd-Carpenter, Mr. Reginald Eyre, Mr. Tim Fortescue, Mr. Cranley Onslow, Mr. Donald Williams, Mr. Fergus Montgomery, and Mr. Keith Speed.

MENTAL HEALTH ACT 1959 (AMENDMENT)

Bill to amend sections 60 and 65 of the Mental Health Act 1959, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 28th March and to be printed. [Bill 116.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[13TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

HOME OWNERSHIP

Mr. Speaker: Before the debate begins, I remind the House that it is a truncated debate—it is a half-day debate in any case—and brief speeches on both sides will be of great assistance to the House and the Chair.
I have selected the Amendment standing in the names of the Prime Minister and his right hon. Friends.

Mr. James Dickens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to delay matters, but are we to take it from your announcement that the debate must end at seven o'clock?

Mr. Speaker: No, I did not indicate that. The House will recall that the Leader of the House said "at about seven o'clock". We shall look at the word "about" with an elastic eye—if that is not too mixed a metaphor.

5.4 p.m.

Mr. Peter Walker: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the policies of Her Majesty's Government that have increased the cost of home ownership to record levels in direct contradiction to their election pledges.
The subject of today's debate is, naturally, one resulting from the announcement last week of an impending increase in the mortgage interest rate to 8½ per cent. This is a matter of immense concern to 3½ million families in this country who are involved in the repayment of mortgages, and it is a matter of immense concern also to thousands more who had hoped to be involved in the near future in the repayment of mortgages. There are countless thousands of young couples whose hopes of owning a home of their own must have been dashed by last Friday's announcement.
It would be easy to spend a lot of time reciting the thousands of pledges and promises on this topic made by the Labour Party. One could leave aside


the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) and the controversy about his promises. One could leave aside the promises of the Prime Minister made in the election manifesto, in his constituency and in marginal constituency after marginal constituency where he spoke, and in his eve of poll broadcast. In all those speeches, in his manifesto and in his broadcast he gave a clear pledge to the electors of Britain that there would be cheaper mortgages, cheaper land and, therefore, cheaper houses.
Few political observers would deny that of all the issues which brought the Labour Government to power, the promises of cheaper mortgages and cheaper land probably gained them more votes than any other. The election manifestos and addresses of virtually every hon. Gentleman opposite who is now a Member will have contained specific promises on the subject of mortgage and land prices. There are many hon. Gentlemen opposite who would not be Members today had it not been for the promises on this issue which they made.
My concern, however, is not to expose the broken pledges—there will be time enough to do that in the constituencies concerned, and I am confident that it will be done—but to expose the complacency with which the Government view the hardship which they have created for those who wish to buy a home of their own. In both the Amendment to be moved later by the Government and the statements of the Chief Secretary earlier this week, there is displayed a remarkable complacency about the hardship which is caused. For example, when questioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) about whether he would at least guarantee that there would be no increase this year in the taxation of building societies, the Chief Secretary replied:
All the evidence which the societies have brought to my attention indicates that young married couples with average incomes are anxious to enter into new mortgages."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th March, 1969; Vol. 780, c. 48.]
I am sure that that is correct. All the evidence available does show that young married couples with average incomes are anxious to enter into new mortgages.

But the reality of the new interest rates will mean that all those couples will be unable to enter into mortgages.
When the Labour Government came to power, the average price of a new house was £3,500. As a result of the rise in interest rates, Selective Employment Tax, import surcharges, higher taxes and devaluation—all Government measures—the average price of a new house today is £4,500. Thus, a young couple today, after four years of Labour Government, wishing to purchase the average price house on a 25-year mortgage and with an 80 per cent. advance— I take an 80 per cent. advance because the figures would be even worse if I used a higher percentage—would have to find £200 more for the deposit and thereafter £2 10s. a week more for their mortgage repayments.
In practice, that excludes thousands of people among the average earners in industry from embarking upon a mortgage at all. What this latest increase does, together with the other increases brought about during the period of this Government, is to exclude manual workers with average incomes from obtaining a mortgage for an average price house. The normal yardstick of a building society is that the monthly repayment must be not more than the average weekly earnings of the male member of the family. Some building societies even include the rates with the repayment figure. In 1964 the monthly repayment for the average-priced house on an 80 per cent. mortgage was £18 6s. 4d,. while average industrial male earnings were £18 2s. 2d. The two were almost the same, and the person with the average income could obtain an 80 per cent. mortgage for the average-price house.
Today, average earnings have increased to £23 but the combined result of the increased price of the average house and the increase in mortgage rates is that the mortgage repayment has risen to £29 8s. Average earnings have gone up by 27 per cent., while mortgage repayments for the average-price new house have risen by 60 per cent. All those people with average industrial earnings will now be excluded from obtaining a mortgage.
Where are they to go? As we all know from our experience in the constituencies, they will go first to the council and put their name down on the housing list. That


list is already very long in many areas, and many of us know how the young couple with one child have no chance of getting a council house in our own areas. They will be unable to get a mortgage, unable to get a council house and unable to get privately rented property, because much of it is barred to people with babies and young children. Therefore, unless the Government act, they will find as a result of their failures a whole new volume of people added to our housing lists, with all the frustration of not being able to get a house.
Added to that, there is the social problem created for those already with a mortgage. It is not quite as desperate a problem, but it is pretty terrifying. The Chief Secretary announced that he has obtained assurances that in cases of hardship the building societies will extend the period of the mortgage. And how! A person with a 20-year mortgage when Labour gained power, when the mortgage interest rate was 6 per cent., will have to extend in his mortgage to 32 years to continue to make the same payment. Therefore, having repaid the mortgage for four years of a Labour Government, he now has eight years more to pay it than when he started. That is the measure of what has happened as a result of the Labour Party's failure to fulfil its election pledges.
What about the man aged 45 who took out a 20-year mortgage then? Many men set up a new home at the age of 40 to 45, and plan their mortgage repayments to end when they retire. The man who started repaying a 20-year mortgage when Labour came to power will now find that he must continue repaying it until he is 77. Therefore, for most of his pensioned life he will have heavy mortgage repayments.
What excuse is given by the Government? First, there is the defence in the Amendment, to which I shall refer later. The primary excuse given yesterday by the Chief Secretary was that international interest rates are high. The interesting thing about the Labour Party is that its promises are always unqualified and its performance is always qualified. There is never any qualification about international interest rates when it makes a promise, but there is always a great deal of qualification when it fails to fulfil it.
For example, in his election address to the electors of Gloucester the Chief Secretary

put as number one of "Labour's 10-point programme":
More houses at less cost—by halting the rise in the price of land and lowering interest charges on mortgages.
He did not say in brackets "subject to international interest rates". There was just the straightforward, simple promise.
The matter is even worse, because the Labour Party specifically said that it would do things in regard to housing irrespective of international interest rates. In its manifesto—we remember the title "Let's Go with Labour"—it stated as its policy on interest rates for housing:
Labour will:
(1) Introduce a policy of lower interest rates for housing. It is impossible to say now what changes will be required in the general interest rate structure of the market. But because of its great importance to the family housing should be treated as a separate case deserving specially favourable borrowing rates. This policy of specially favourable rates will apply both to intending owner-occupiers and to local authorities building houses to let
It added that those with existing mortgages might not be able to come into the scheme immediately, but it stated categorically that all those—not just a few under a mortgage option scheme— applying for new mortgages would get specially favourable interest rates.
The Minister of Housing and Local Government will agree that the target of 500,000 new houses a year must be related to people's ability to obtain mortgages. The target was 250,000 owner-occupied houses and 250,000 houses to let, and it therefore depended on the Government's having an interest rate structure which would enable 250,000 people a year to purchase houses and obtain mortgages. The Prime Minister said in his speech at Bradford:
It is a pledge. We shall achieve the 500,000 target,"—
and he added significantly—
and we shall not allow any developments, any circumstances, however adverse, to deflect us from our aim.
The Prime Minister categorically stated that irrespective of the economic situation, and whatever the circumstances, this part of Labour's programme would not be adversely affected. Not only did the Labour Party fail to link its promises with any suggestion that international interest rates might affect them but, far


worse, it specifically said that it would exclude the adverse effects of international interest rates.
It ill becomes the Government to plead international interest rates as the reason when nothing has contributed more to the need to raise those rates than their maladministration. I must ask the Chief Secretary, as this is his plea, what the Government's position will be if they succeed with our economy. If they succeed eventually by a miracle, after all the years of promising a favourable balance of payments, and confidence in the British economy is restored, is the Chief Secretary saying that mortgage interest rates will still depend not on the success of our economy but on international interest rates? If that is his plea, there is no hope from the Government for the mortgage interest payer. His only hope is that other Governments will succeed in bringing down their Bank Rates. We know full well that the Government's failure in economic affairs has been the cause of the increase in mortgage interest payments.
The Chief Secretary's final plea was a remarkable defence. He complacently told the House that in the past those who paid the interest had the benefit of a bigger rise in the value of their house than the interest they paid. A few hon. Members opposite at least support that case. What the Labour Party must realise is that people do not buy a house to make a profit. They do so to make a home. They are not interested in the fact that the price of their house is rising. They are interested in the difficulty they are having in repaying the mortgage.
I turn now to the Government Amendment. It once again illustrates the remarkable complacency of the Government on this topic. Rather than in any way defend or deplore the fact that interest rates have risen, they recite as their defence three matters on which they consider they have taken action to help home ownership. The first deals with the rates, and they quote their various rate schemes.
What the Government must recognise is that domestic rates were allowed to rise by 25 per cent. before they took any action. Their various schemes to assist the ratepayers took place after the first two years of Labour Government, when the domestic rate had already risen 25

per cent. If they go into the constituencies saying that they have helped home ownership by keeping rates down, they will get a hollow laugh from the ratepayers.
Then the Government refer to the option mortgage scheme, which they quote as a method of assisting owner occupiers. I want first to expose the deceit to the electors in the scheme. I cannot do better than quote what the Prime Minister promised the electors of Huyton in the 1966 election. It is simple.
Couples owing their own homes, or wishing to do so, will benefit from our exciting new scheme of Option Mortgages.
What he did not tell them was that the scheme would be so devised that it would be no use to 94 per cent. of the people repaying mortgages. Only 6 per cent. of those with mortgages have found the mortgage option scheme to be attractive to them.
The fact that once they join the scheme they can never again obtain a tax rebate on their interest results in the scheme being unattractive to almost every young couple. I give an undertaking that the Conservative Government will immediately revise the scheme so that people can opt out at certain stages.

Mr. John Fraser: The hon. Gentleman has just made a far-reaching statement. Has he discussed it with the Building Societies Association? Has he its agreement to vary the scheme?

Mr. Walker: I have discussed it with the Association and I do not have to have its agreement to vary the scheme. If the Minister says that he cannot vary the scheme without the approval of the Association, I am surprised. Certainly I would discuss it with the Association, and it would be changed in such a way that the building societies could operate it. I am convinced from my conversations with the Association that the scheme could be operated in such a way, and this we will do.

Mr. Joel Burnett: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the scheme would be a genuine subsidy to mortgage payers, or would the party opposite give appropriate relief where they would not pay tax?

Mr. Walker: We would have a similar scheme, except that there would be certain opportunities to break away from


it and go to the position where the mortgage payer could obtain tax rebate. That is the main change we would bring about. The absurdity of the present scheme, which excludes 94 per cent of mortgage payers from taking part, is that couples know that if they enter the scheme they will be at a later stage at a great disadvantage compared with other people with mortgages. The fact that the scheme has been such a flop is indicated in the statistics. Of 3,400,000 people with mortgages, more than 3,200,000 have found the scheme to have no attractions. It is a bad scheme. The promises made about it during the election were a fraud upon the electors.
The remaining plea in the Amendment is that the Government built more houses last year than ever before. I am rather surprised that the Minister of Housing and Local Government allowed that claim to be included in the Amendment, because he knows that the only reason for that very high figure last year was that a large number of houses were started in the previous year in order to avoid paying the betterment levy. He has stated so himself. In giving his excuses for the drop in the number of starts last year, he provided the fact that, previously, the starts had increased in order to avoid the betterment levy.
Perhaps the only good that the Land Commission Act has done was to make a lot of people start building houses in order to avoid its workings. It is significant that the Amendment, in setting out the things the Government have done to help housing, completely omits any mention of the Land Commission. Is it because the Government have concluded that the Land Commission is not really a good body to boast about any longer? It has in fact failed completely, although it was sold to the electors on having the prime task of bringing down land prices. But under the Labour Government the prices of houses and land have gone up, and now mortgage interest rates have reached a record level.
But we see the Government apparently satisfied with the position and refusing to refer the matter to the Prices and Incomes Board. Some hon. Members opposite are critical of the Government for not doing so. I warn them that the Government did not refer the issue to

the Board because, its having been referred only two years ago, all the facts about the building societies and the prices of mortgages are already well known, so that if it were referred again the only new fact which could appear would be the economic failure of the Government during the past year. This is illustrated very clearly by the statistics.

Mr. Dickens: Silly.

Mr. Walker: If the hon. Member will be patient, we might be able to explain even to him. The statistics produced by the building societies for last year clearly illustrate the reason for the present difficulty. Last year, the amount of new savings increased by £75 million, mainly as a result of interest payments. But the amount of withdrawals from the building societies amounted to no less than £400 million. The reason for the crisis in the building societies and for the withdrawal of £400 million was the spending spree of 1968, with the complete lack of confidence in savings created by the Government's economic policy. It is because people decided last year to turn from saving to spending that the building societies had the absolute necessity of increasing their interest rates.
So we have the situation in which the building societies are having to put up their mortgage rates, and to aggravate it further the Government decided to reduce the amount of money available for local authority mortgages. What a record they have there! When they came to power, £175 million a year was being provided for local authority mortgages. Last year, it was £130 million. Now, this year, the year in which the mortgage position is worse than ever, they will reduce it to a miserable £13 million. When they came to power, 70,000 families were obtaining local authority mortgages in one year. This year, we shall be lucky if 10,000 families can avail themselves of them.
The fact is that Labour came into power on the cry of cheaper houses and cheaper mortgages. It will deserve to lose power on the cry of soaring house prices, land prices and the highest ever mortgage interest charges. In its mid-term manifesto it reached a situation where, so ashamed was it of its housing performance, that housing did not even receive a mention in the whole of the manifesto.


We have now reached the situation when action needs to be taken. We will certainly revise the mortgage option scheme; we will certainly return to local authorities the rights and freedom to provide mortgages to those who need them. We will certainly remove some of the extra charges put upon the building industry and on the building societies by taxes such as S.E.T. But what is far more fundamentally important, we will restore faith in the economy so that a property-owning democracy, instead of being a dream of the past, will become a reality of the future.

5.31 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Anthony Greenwood): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'recalling the help given by the present Government to home owners through the Option Mortgage Scheme, the Rates Rebate Scheme and the domestic element of the Rate Support Grant and the fact that more houses for owner occupation were built during the last year than in any other post-war year, approves the policies of Her Majesty's Government designed to increase home ownership in all sections of the community'.
We have just listened to an interesting speech by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker), which was more noteworthy as a piece of dialectic than as a constructive contribution to housing policies. We have had from hon. Gentlemen opposite no indication of their policy, no indication as to how they would deal with rising world interest rates, no indication of how they would face the problem of competition for short-term money, no indication of how they would finance the high rate of house building that we need so badly, no indication of how they would protect those of our people whom they neglected in the past, and no indication of how the Opposition, if they became the Government, would finance the proposals with which the hon. Gentleman concluded his speech.
It is easy to be critical of any aspect of policy, but I can assure the House that there is no complacency on this bench about the housing situation. There are aspects of it I deeply regret. I am sorry that devaluation forced us to abandon the 500,000 target; I regret very much indeed the cut-back in local authority

home loans; I regret the high interest rates for home ownership. What I do strongly resent is the charge of lack of faith and deceit that the hon. Gentleman has levelled against us.
I want to go back, not to the manifesto from which the hon. Gentleman was quoting one part of his speech, which was the 1964 manifesto, but to the manifesto of the Labour Party in the last General Election, 1966. So that we can put these housing facts into their proper perspective, I would remind the House of what we said in the manifesto. We said:
The desperate shortage of houses to let at modest moderate rents in our great conurbations can only be met by a large and speedy increase in council building. To make this financially possible, we have provided councils with the equivalent of 4 per cent. interest rates for house building. At present interest rates, the new Subsidy Bill increases the basic subsidy of £24, where the Tories left it, to well over £60 per house. Part of this very substantial increase will be used by councils to ensure that every new house is built to the improved standards laid down by the Government.
In fact we have done better than that, because instead of the subsidy simply being the £60 we referred to, in the case of the average three-bedroomed council house it is running at over £100 a year and there are flats in the London area where the subsidy is as much as £150–£160 a year.
We have to consider the totality of housing projects. We have kept to what we said in the manifesto. Local authorities know that they can now build at the guaranteed rate of 4 per cent. for new houses. The result has been that, whereas in the period between August, 1960 and the end of October 1964, 551,000 houses were completed in the public sector by the party opposite, in exactly the same period we have completed 790,000. In the private sector during that period the party opposite completed 780,000, whereas in our period of office the number is 899,000.
The hon. Gentleman talks about a property-owning democracy. There are far more people owning their houses in Britain today than there ever were when his party was in office. We have increased the number of private houses built during our period of office by 119,000 more than they built in the same period and increased the number of houses built in the public sector by


239,000. The total increase is 358,000 over the number built during the same period by a Conservative Government.
Although the hon. Gentleman may refer back to the fact that some houses were started to avoid the betterment levy, it is quite clear that those houses were finished not to avoid the betterment levy but because there was a market for them, and people who wanted to buy them were in a position to do so. We also said that we would improve the standards of houses, and from 1st January this year the Parker Morris standards in respect of space and heating are mandatory.
The second promise we made was to:
… make a new approach to the problem of central areas in our cities. Slum clearance must of course go on. But there must be quicker and fairer compensation for those displaced. However, we shall not be content simply to demolish. Wherever possible, we shall renew and modernise existing buildings.
That is exactly what we are doing in the Housing Bill now before Parliament. We are making much more generous provision for improvement and conversion than ever before. Hundreds of thousands of people who are owner-occupiers will benefit from these grants. We are giving Governmental help for environmental improvement for the first time.
Here let me remind hon. Gentlemen opposite, those great friends of the owner-occupiers, that we are the first Government which has done justice to the owner-occupier whose house is demolished under a slum clearance scheme. Why it should have taken hon. Gentlemen opposite all these years to do this simple act of justice is something which I cannot understand, and which I believe the public cannot understand either. Why did they do nothing to help these people who have been the victims of gross injustice in the past? Incidentally, let me remind the House that last year and the year before we achieved record figures for slum clearance. In 1967 and in 1968 over 90,000 slums were cleared in each year. By the end of the year over 435,000 slums will have been cleared since we took office. That is 65,000 more than the Tories succeeded in doing during their period of office.
The third promise we made was that we would go ahead with a further programme of new and expanded towns.

There is quite an interesting point about our new and expanded towns, because we are the first Government which have set out to have 50 per cent. of owner-occupation in the new towns. We have gone ahead with the programme for new towns. We have designated the new town of Irving in Scotland, Newtown in Wales, Milton Keynes, the biggest of them all in England, Northampton, Peterborough, Warrington, and we have extended Dawley and made it into the new town of Telford. In all those new towns we are making provision for taking people from overcrowded conurbations and at the same time encouraging owner-occupation.
Our next promise was for a fair deal for council house tenants. We have also carried out that promise. We have protected them against unnecessary rent increases which in many cases Conservative councils were proposing to impose and, under the powers which have been conferred on my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales and on myself by the Prices and Incomes Act, we have rejected one-third of the proposed rent increases. I say solemnly that I shall continue to reject any increases which cannot be proved to be absolutely necessary in the situation obtaining.
We have for the first time made rent rebate schemes a reality. Many of the rent rebate schemes which existed before we came into power were a complete sham. We have stepped up subsidies, so that council house tenants are helped by a much larger council house subsidy than has ever before been granted, in some areas a subsidy of £4 a week. We have stopped what I believe was the wicked and foolish sale of council houses in areas where there were large numbers of people on the waiting list.
I come now to the promises we made on the purchase of houses.

Mr. Reginald Eyre: I have here a telegram from the Bromford Housing Society of Birmingham which says that the rent charged by a cost-rent housing society will go up by 15s a week and the charge made by a co-ownership housing society will go up by 11s. a week, and it contains some severe words about hardship. Will the


Minister say how he will help these housing societies which are doing such an important job in the City of Birmingham and in other cities?

Mr. Greenwood: I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman expects me to comment in public on an individual case without notice. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that members of a co-ownership scheme will derive advantage from the option mortgage scheme.

Mr. Peter Walker: The right hon. Gentleman has said that he has paid council rents—[Interruption.]—or he is stopping any increase—[Interruption.] He has said that he is taking action with local authorities to prevent certain rent increases. Will he answer my hon. Friend and say what action he will now take to prevent further rent increases for housing societies?

Mr. Greenwood: No, it is not relevant; I cannot comment on an individual case. I am commenting on the policy that we have adopted in respect of unnecessary, harsh increases which local authorities were proposing to impose. I have always said that a freeze was impossible, but I have said that everything should be done to mitigate the effect upon tenants of council house rent increases.
On the subject of houses to buy, we said in our manifesto:
In order to secure an adequate flow of finance for private housing we have persuaded the building societies and the builders to work closely with the Ministry of Housing in planning a steady continuous expansion of output up to their share of the programme.
In addition to a mortgage plan we are determined to protect the owner-occupier against the jerry-builder.
We said later in the manifesto, under the heading "The New Home Ownership Plan":
Those who wish to buy their own homes also need relief from the State. Until now this mainly took the form of tax remissions on mortgage instalments. The higher the mortgagor's income bracket and the more expensive his house, the bigger his tax concession. This system is obviously unfair, particularly since the lower paid get nothing at all.
We have therefore announced a new Home Ownership Plan under which each mortgagor will have this choice: to retain his present right to tax concessions—or qualify for a new Government grant which brings down

the interest rate on his mortgage by 2½ per cent. (subject to a minimum of 4 per cent.)
In case any hon. Gentleman is tempted to interrupt me, I will refer in a moment to the 2½ per cent.
We said that we would make sure that the quality of houses was good. We set our minds against legislation unless it was absolutely inevitable, but we have succeeded in making the National House Builders' Registration scheme infinitely more effective than it was before we took a part in it. This year over 90 per cent. of the houses which have been built for private purchasers will be carrying the 10-year guarantee of good workmanship given by the National House Builders' Registration Council. Once again, why hon. Gentlemen opposite could not do anything about the jerry-building during their period of office is something that I shall never understand.

Mr. Peter Mahon: In addition to building so many homes for private owners, have not the Government redeemed their most profound promise to build houses for people who could not afford them rather than for the people who could?

Mr. Greenwood: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that contribution and, knowing the great part that he has played in the housing programme in Bootle, I pay great tribute to everything that he has achieved.
We said that we would maintain an adequate flow of finance for private housing. I have appreciated the presence of representatives of the building societies on my Housing Programme Working Party. The building societies have achieved a tremendous success. In 1967 there were 166,000 advances on new houses and 436,000 on old houses. In 1968 there were 174,000 advances on new houses and 410,000 on old houses, a total in the two years of 1,186,000 mortgage advances. In 1963, the last complete year of Conservative Government, £255 million was advanced on new houses and £586 million on old houses. In 1968, £508 million was advanced on new houses and £1,040 million on old houses, a total of £1,548 million, a record in the history of the building society movement. The contributions made by the building societies have resulted in the record post-war completions in the private sector of 222,000 houses last year.
I remind the House that between December 1964 and December 1968 the number of owner-occupied dwellings went up by exactly 1 million. That means that 1 million more families are living in homes of their own. The percentage of dwellings in owner-occupation has gone up from 46 per cent. to 49 per cent. It is a remarkable situation that almost exactly half of the people of this country are now living in their own houses. These are figures that hon. Gentleman opposite cannot laugh off.
Building societies, of course, must borrow if they are to have the money to lend. They cannot be insulated against competition. People have to be persuaded to lend them money and people have to be persuaded not to withdraw it once they have lent it. The figures for the last three months have been disturbing figures. The figures for the net intake, seasonally adjusted, that is to say for new investments less withdrawals, were, in November, £89 million; in December, £70 million; in January £63 million; in February £54 million, and I am sorry to say that the deterioration was more rapid in the second half of February. In that situation, the societies estimated that, if they were to keep private house building at about the 1968 level, they would need to be able to lend at least £1,600 million in 1969, and that would involve a net intake of at least £80 million a month. I have told the House how much below that figure of £80 million the intake had slumped.
If there was a serious continued drop in net receipts, there would be a serious drop in the completions of houses for sale. If the number of houses for sale were to fall, there would be distress to people who want to buy, and there would be the most serious uncertainty and disruption in the building industry itself.
I will not elaborate on the connection between mortgage rates and general interest levels at home and abroad, and any comments or suggestions which relate to the societies as financial institutions will be dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary. I will say only that the rates offered by building societies have to be competitive, and we could only accept their view that, if the rate of building was to be maintained, the net intake would have to be improved.
I want to remind the House that, when the announcement was made by the Chairman of the Building Societies Association, he made a statement in which he said:
Individual societies will decide when to adjust the rate charged to existing borrowers and how many of those borrowers will need to increase their monthly payments in order to ensure a progressive reduction of mortgage debt. Building societies will do all in their power to avoid hardship in individual cases and, in any event, a substantial number of existing borrowers will, if they so wish, be able to continue their existing repayments over an extended period.
The second point that I want to make is that we did not refer this proposal to the National Board for Prices and Incomes because the figures showed no justification for doing that. Building society rates, like Government lending rates, have to follow the general market trends. But we do not preclude a later reference to the Board, and we shall look to the building societies to show equal promptitude in bringing down their rates when market trends begin to fall.

Mr. Peter Hordern: As it is the case that the rates offered now by the building societies are still not as competitive as those offered by Government gilt-edged securities, is it not very likely that there will not be a flow of money into the building societies? Therefore, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, should the building society rate be raised again, he will not refer that increase to the National Board for Prices and Incomes?

Mr. Greenwood: I do not think that we have shown any animus against the building societies, and I have paid warm tribute to their real contribution to the solution of the housing problem, so far as it has gone. When my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary had his discussion with representatives of the building societies last week, they were satisfied that the increase which they were suggesting would have the desired effect, and I think that all of us must have the greatest hope that that will turn out to be the case.
I think that I must make the point that we have also maintained Income Tax relief on mortgage payments. It is a great pity that so many newspapers, in giving figures to show the effects of the new interest rates, in most cases did


not show how much of the increase is cushioned by tax concessions. We have also introduced the option mortgage scheme to which the hon. Gentleman referred in somewhat critical terms. I mentioned earlier the 2½ per cent. and the 2 per cent. subsidies. The 2½ per cent. subsidy referred to in the Manifesto was a 2½ per cent. annuity subsidy, which was what the Government first proposed when we announced the scheme in March, 1966. But when the option mortgage scheme was introduced in 1967, it provided for a 2 per cent. interest rate subsidy, which has much the same value over the life of the mortgage and is easier for the building societies to administer.
The hon. Gentleman has criticised the option mortgage scheme. I think that its success is shown by the fact that no less than 285,000 existing borrowers opted for the scheme. That was more than we had anticipated. In less than a year since the scheme started to operate, over 30,000 new borrowers had decided to take part in it.
With tremendous confidence, the hon. Gentleman was saying exactly what he would do about the option mortgage scheme if he was Minister for Housing and Local Government. He was pretty confident of his ability to order about the insurance companies and building societies. I can assure him that, if by some mischance he should at some stage occupy the office that I now occupy, he will find how important is the role of the building societies and that, when one relies upon them to operate a scheme, one cannot order them about in the way that he was suggesting.
I heard the hon. Gentleman say that he could get the building societies to make concessions about opting in and opting out of the scheme. Only today we have had a letter from the Building Societies Association saying that it has set its face against any suggestion of further complicating the scheme by allowing second options—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I can fully understand its point of view. This is a complicated scheme. We are indebted to the building societies for operating it, and I think that we have to accept the wisdom of their advice on a matter of this kind.
The hon. Gentleman has been very free with his charges of bad faith on the part of my colleagues and myself. After the denial which my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) made in the House the day before yesterday, I hope that the House has accepted that my right hon. Friend did not give the pledge—incidentally, in the 1964 election and not the last election—of which he has been so frequently accused.
The hon. Member for Worcester referred to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at the last election. I have been looking at some of my right hon. Friend's speeches. He said at Stevenage, for example:
We shall cheapen the costing of housing by our interest rate policy.
That is exactly what we did when we told local authorities that they could build new houses at a guaranteed rate of 4 per cent. In fact, we are giving them a subsidy. We are reducing the interest rate by over 3 per cent. There is no breach of faith on the part of my right hon. Friend.
He said at an election Press conference:
We intend to make a substantial reduction for new owner-occupiers.
That is exactly what we did in the option mortgage scheme, under which many people are paying as much as 2 per cent. less than would otherwise have been the case.
I hope that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will stop making these allegations about bad faith, which do no credit to this House and which do not help for a rational discussion of what are serious human problems. I hope that they will accept that we put forward our Manifesto at the last election and that we have carried out almost all of the housing objectives which I quoted earlier.
Finally, I want to comment briefly on the subject of rates. It is not enough for the hon. Gentleman to try and laugh off what we have done in the reform of rating. We are the first Government to have got the general escalation of rate levels under control. It took us two years to do it. The hon. Gentleman sneers at us because it took that time, but, at any rate, we have done it.
Comparing the figures for the current years 1968–69 with 1967–68, 36 per cent. of local authorities had increases of more


than 3d. in the domestic rate poundage, 16 per cent. had increases up to 3d., 15 per cent. had no change, 17 per cent. had decreases of up to 3d., and 16 per cent. had decreases of more than 3d. The increase over the whole country over those two years was minimal compared with the figures over the last eight or ten years.
The public must realise that in the coming financial year every domestic ratepayer is 1s. 3d. in the £ better off because of the Labour Government than he would have been under the previous Administration. The following year the figure will be 1s. 8d.
I will not go into rate rebates in detail, but the first year of rate rebates showed that about one million people were getting rate rebates, on average, of £15. How favourably that compares with the miserly, niggardly scheme that the Tories put forward. There again, we are producing real, solid benefits for the people that hon. Gentlemen opposite are making easy protestations about wanting to protect.
In housing, I believe that we have a solid record of constructive achievement. By the end of the current year about 2 million new houses will have been built, over 600,000 old houses will have been improved, and over 435,000 slum houses will have been cleared. That is a record for which no one on this side of the House will apologise.
It ill becomes the party, under which Rachmanism flourished and the level of council house building was low, to criticise Her Majesty's Government with a record of achievement to their credit which I confidently commend to the House.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. Oscar Murton: We listened with great interest to the Minister of Housing and Local Government putting up a fine smoke cloud of a very good pink hue about the achievements of the Government since 1964. However, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that this censure Motion, standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and his right hon. and hon. Friends, refers to the cost of home ownership.
We have heard from the Minister of the remarkable, almost ornamental, edifices of achievement in many things— what I might describe as fringe benefits.

I do not deny that there is much solid achievement. There must always be solid achievements in any Administration in housing. It would be dreadful if there were not. On the other hand, I noticed that when the right hon. Gentleman proceeded to give a list of those things in the Labour manifesto of 1966 which had been carried out, he carefully moved over the one which says,
We have announced—and we intend to achieve—a Government target of 500,000 houses by 1969–70.

Mr. Greenwood: I think it took me some little time to wake up the hon. Gentleman. In the first couple of minutes of my speech I referred to my regret that we had to abandon that pledge after the devaluation exercise.

Mr. Murton: I think that the right hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I was about to ask him why they had to do this. There is failure in the Administration. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) has said, promises should not be made if they cannot be fulfilled. This is the worst possible thing for removing the confidence of the electorate from any particular party.
Time is short so I will quickly move on to the option mortgage scheme. This has not been the success which the Government would claim. The recent increase in the Bank Rate has completely obliterated the advantage of the 2 per cent. reduction in the standard mortgage interest rate which was part of this scheme. Indeed, as my hon. Friend has said, the 6 per cent. of people who opted for the scheme have been sorely disillusioned because they are unable to opt out of it.
The difficulty here was more in the wording of the pamphlet issued at the time the scheme was produced, but there is much good in the scheme. I can understand, because of the scheme's complications, that the building societies would find it difficult, as matters stand, to make it possible for someone to opt out. But surely these difficulties can be overcome by consultation and possibly by simplification.
I must tell the Minister—I know that he will take it in good part—that one irate constituent of mine, who came all the way down to see me, said, "It is an utter swindle. I am in and I cannot get


out. How can I take steps to sue the Minister for misrepresentation?" I told him that this was hardly the thing to do. However, I agreed that he was in a very difficult position. We all know that it was the question of the family allowances that caused that to happen. I hope that it may be possible at some stage, either during the short remaining life of the present Government or, I hope, the coming life of a Conservative Administration, to do something to resolve this problem and to put it right.
I want to deal chiefly with mortgage interest rates. The Chief Secretary, on 17th March, when I asked him,
… how can any worker in an industrial job hope ever to achieve home ownership",
and I really meant it because I do not see how he ever can, said, I thought somewhat complacently,
… there is a queue of borrowers anxious to pay the going rate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th March, 1969; Vol. 780, c. 45.]
I do not know how the right hon. Gentleman can equate that rather complacent statement with something which the Chairman of the Building Societies Association said in an interview with the Daily Express on 15th March:
I hope home loans will become freer after this, though it will not end mortgage rationing altogether.
My concern is that the small man, the young industrial worker with a growing family, will continue to be the victim of that rationing. It is no fault of the building societies. We know that it is the fault of the interest rate, and I suggest that it is up to the Treasury Ministers to do something about the effect it has on the building societies.
These industrial workers cannot afford to pay the going rate of 8½ per cent. They cannot afford to borrow £3,000 on a 25-year term and pay £244 7s. in interest alone before they begin to think of repayment of the capital. Through no fault of their own, these unfortunate people will not have an adequate wage to meet such a growing commitment. I do not doubt that others, more fortunate, will be able to pay this going rate and will be able to take their position in the queue that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned; but, even so, those more fortunate persons will be pressed pretty hard. As I said last Monday, a man

borrowing £5,000 over 25 years will have to have a minimum salary of £2,000 a year, and that is not an inconsiderable sum, particularly as he probably has a young family to bring up and to educate.
In my part of the country I have been told of people who are negotiating private mortgages at an interest rate of 15 per cent. This is an absolutely extortionate rate, but it is being taken on in desperation by people who are unable to obtain money any cheaper.
Half the houses in England and Wales are owner-occupied. If some of these owners cannot obtain mortgages, they will be unable to move house to change their jobs, or because their families are growing up and they need bigger houses, or because their families are leaving home and they need smaller houses. If this happens, there will be a chain reaction which will affect not only those who have a house which they are able to sell and buy a bigger one. It will have an effect right down the line. It will affect the small man setting up home for the first time, the man who has no money other than the deposit which he can lay down, and who knows the impossibility in the present circumstances of obtaining a mortgage.
That brings me to an even more serious point. Mobility of labour in this country is already somewhat restricted. If the present trend in mortgage rates continues, mobility of labour will become even more stagnant, and that can only affect the national economy very grievously.
Putting aside the question of the desperate situation of the small potential borrower, what about the existing borrower? There have been two increases in mortgage rates of particular severe consequence, last year, and now this year. The latest increase will mean that about 150,000 existing borrowers will not be able to extend the time for repayment. In many cases the existing monthly payment at the new interest rate of 8½ per cent. will not even cover the interest on the loan, let alone pay off any of the borrowed capital. For them the rate will go up. Whether they like it or not, they will have to pay it because the days of dormant loans are long since past.
People in the next category are more fortunate, if one can call them that.


They will be able to elongate their loans, but for how long? Will they be able to do so into retirement, or into infinity? If into infinity, will it mean that their poor widows will be left to face the ultimate problem of repayment? We are coming to that situation, and it is a very serious one.
The sheer tragedy of it all is that bricks and mortar—one's own home—are the one major secure and appreciating investment in this present insecure, unstable, and rapidly inflating economic climate. Whatever Ministers on the Treasury Bench may say, our present economic climate is due to the utter mess which the Government have made of the country's internal affairs. It is not only a question of international rates. If the country's internal affairs were properly organised by an adequate and competent Administration, we should not be in this frightful mess now, and house owners and those who cannot get mortgages would not be the helpless sufferers of this system.
It is not inappropriate to remind the House that this is the fourth time that mortgage rates have risen while a Labour Government have been in power since 1964. This is the fourth turn of the mortgage screw. The highest and biggest increase ever made at one time is the most recent one. The second largest was in February, 1965. Since we have had a Labour Administration there has been nothing but escalation in interest rates, and my personal fear is that all rates of interest will move inexorably upwards for some time to come.
If I am right—and I pray to heaven that I am not—the building societies will be faced with the same position again at the end of this year. What a travesty all this makes of the Labour Party's promise of cheaper houses and lower interest rates. Was there ever a more shameful breach of faith with the electorate of Britain? Whatever the Minister says, however sincere he is, I do not consider that his defence of his Administration at the Dispatch Box this afternoon will carry any conviction with the electors of this country, particularly with those who are unable to obtain mortgages.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): I remind the House of the short time available for this debate, and I ask

hon. Members to be as brief as possible. Mr. James Dickens.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. James Dickens: I represent a constituency with a high and rising proportion of owner-occupiers. Many of my constituents are faced with the difficulty of having to meet the very high rate of 8½ per cent. which the Building Societies Association announced last week. The position is particularly acute in the London area for newly married young people who are faced not merely with high interest rates but with the rapidly appreciating capital value of property. It is becoming increasingly difficult for people in South-East London to acquire property for a family at a figure of below £4,500. The problem confronting those people in my constituency is grave, and I want to argue that there is no need whatever for this increase in the mortgage interest rates, and that the Association and the Government could between them adopt policies which would make this situation avoidable.
I propose to deal first with one or two of the economic aspects of the background to high interest rates. This afternoon my right hon. Friend had no great difficulty in showing the House that the housing record of this Government is markedly better than that of the party opposite when it was in power. That record must be sustained, and improved, but the Government's social policy, and this of course includes their housing policy, is entirely at risk because of their economic policy. For it is certainly true that the Government's economic policy has seriously inhibited the development of their social policy, and in this respect their housing policy. This is particularly so where interest rates are an important factor in housing.
Why is it that in Britain interest rates are so much higher than the interest rates prevailing generally in other advanced industrial countries? Why is it that interest rates in London are, on average, 2 per cent. higher than in other leading financial centres? The reason is clear. It is part of the function of the City of London to attract short-term inward capital movement, to pay interest rates of 8 per cent., and above, for short-term "hot" money coming into London. It is primarily because of this that interest rates are high in this country, and this is one important reason


why interest rates generally are higher than they need be.
The position could be changed if the Government pursued a new economic policy designed to reappraise the rôle of the City. But it does not lie in the mouths of the spokesman for the party opposite to argue against the present high rates of interest when we all know that if hon. Gentlemen opposite were in power today they would be pursuing basically the same sort of economic policy as the Government are doing. We know, too, that the Bank Rate and building society mortgage interest rates would be at about the same level if they held power. That is the overall position.
I turn now to the particular position of building societies. Earlier this week I said in the House, and I repeat it now, that the Building Societies Association was precipiate in its decision last week. I want the Government to go back to the Association and invite it to reconsider its decision pending further consideration of a number of proposals which I want to develop.
First, it will become increasingly difficult, when equity investment is so profitable to people into investing in fixed-interest shares. If this is so, we must grapple with the problem of where the building societies will get the funds to provide the capital for those who require new mortgages. I have advanced the proposition that building societies should be empowered to take out a 10 per cent. equity in the value of property on which they are advancing new mortgages. This would mean that the home owner, if his property appreciated and he sells it, would give back to the building society 10 per cent. of the appreciation between the price that he originally paid and the price for which he is selling. This seems fair. I am not arguing that the home owner should not make a capital gain, but he should not keep all the capital appreciation for himself, since, for example, the community has played a part in attaining this betterment.
My second argument is that the building society movement is out of date. I look at the present size of the movement. In 1900, there were 2,200 separate building societies and in 1967 there were

still 554; 236 of which have assets of more than £1 million but 254 of which have assets of less than £500,000. The six big societies, the Halifax, Abbey National, Co-operative Permanent, Woolwich, Leeds Permanent and Alliance Building Societies between them have 52 per cent. of the total assets of all societies. This vast proliferation leads to heavy management expenditure.
The staff of building societies, for example, has risen from 9,500 in 1956 to 17,700 in 1967. The number of separate branches in 1967 was 1,542 for societies with assets of more than £1 million. In Victoria Street, not half a mile from the House, there are four separate building society branches competing with one another; that is bound to lead to heavy overheads and administrative costs. In 1967, the accommodation and office expenses of building societies, excluding salaries, amounted to about £8,600,000. In advertising, competing with one another, in 1967 they spent £2½ million.
So there is a strong case for the Government inviting the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation to consult with the Building Societies Association and the Registrar-General of Friendly Societies to see whether we cannot get a rapid and considerable amalgamation in the number of building societies.

Mr. John M. Temple: Would the hon. Gentleman recognise that the building society movement has been much more successful than the Government in pulling in savings in the last few years?

Mr. Dickens: This may be so. But I remind the hon. Member that the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) argued that one reason for the present difficulties was the substantial withdrawals from building societies in 1968, and he inferred that this money had gone into a so-called spending spree. There was a marginal increase in the volume of retail sales in 1968 as against 1967, but total savings, including savings in equities through unit trusts, markedly increased over the same period. I was greatly surprised that the hon. Member for Worcester, who holds senior positions in the unit trust movement, did not recognise that.
I was coming to amalgamations. In Report No. 22 the National Board for


Prices and Incomes, explaining the advantages of amalgamations, said:
First, amalgamations would help to reduce the tendency towards proliferation of branch offices. Secondly, they would bring the benefit of greater financial security due to a wider geographical spread of borrowers and investors. Thirdly, by enlarging the absolute amount of resources, amalgamations would enable societies to operate with a lower reserve ratio and a lower total of liquid resources …
That brings me to my third point. It is wrong for building societies to retain reserves at their present level. I should have thought that there was a strong case for the Government guaranteeing these reserves thus allowing a reduction in reserves to enable people to borrow more extensively.
Fourthly, the Government must look to the building societies as a major instrument of social advance in housing and should treat them accordingly. There is a strong case for examining whether or not building societies should be exempt from Corporation Tax, for example, which cost £18 million in 1967–68, and from Selective Employment Tax. I know that my right hon. Friend is hard-pressed to cut taxation and raise public expenditure at the same time, but I submit that there is a special case for treating building societies on these lines.
It is true that my constituents, like home owners throughout the country, will have to pay, if the Building Societies Association's recommendation goes through, a much higher rate of mortgage interest. But let us not forget that for standard rate taxpayers, the effective rate of interest is about 5¾ per cent. It presents people who are home owners today, even with mortgage interest of 8½ per cent., with a good investment mainly because property is appreciating much more rapidly, certainly in London, the South-East and the Midlands, than the annual rate of interest. There is no better investment than property.
When we bear in mind that, in 1967, the taxpayers contributed through the mortgage Income Tax relief about £180 million and that this sum was vastly greater than all the subsidies for local house-building from central Government and for rate subsidies from local authorities themselves for council building, we can see the tremendous benefits which home owners are getting.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: In spite of what my hon. Friend says—there is a great deal of wisdom in what he says and the Government should pay close attention to it—in real, practical terms, the percentage increases in mortgage interest rates are pushing away the possibility for many of our people who have been struggling of saving the margin of money between what they can borrow and what houses cost.

Mr. Dickens: That is a valid point and my hon. Friend will remember that, at the beginning of my speech, I not only deplored the fact that this tendency would develop as a consequence of this latest move, with all the implications which that has for private rented accommodation in the London area, but used it as an argument for the Government inviting the Association to reconsider their decision to increase mortgage rates.
I repeat there is no need for this. It is part and parcel of the effect on the Government's social policy of their economic policy at home and abroad. It gives one additional reason for reappraising the rôle of the City of London as a centre for attracting short-term capital movements, and for reviewing the rôle of building societies. I invite the Government to act accordingly.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Rafton Pounder: In accordance with Parliamentary custom, I wish at the outset to declare my interest in that I am a director of a building society. I am, therefore, glad to speak following the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens) because he made some interesting points.
It has not so far been mentioned in the discussion of building societies and their activities that the building society movement is an integral part of the general savings movement and is not a rival thereof. The paramount purpose of the building society movement is the provision of a service to the community. Despite what the hon. Member for Lewisham, West hinted at, building societies are not profit-making entities in the sense of ordinary commercial undertakings. They provide a service to an evergrowing section of the community—the home owner.

Mr. Dickens: It was part of my case for urging the Government to remove


Corporation Tax and S.E.T. from building societies that they are not commercial entities in the normal trading sense. I pointed out that they are fulfilling a special social function and should be regarded in this way for taxation purposes.

Mr. Pounder: I am glad to agree with the hon. Gentleman.
We often forget the small margin of surplus out of which a building society must provide for its management expenses, pay Corporation Tax and other taxation, and also accumulate its reserves. In fact, the margin is only about 1 per cent. and there can be no other category of undertaking which works on such a miniscule margin.
Operating expenses have been rising for the last few years, due to a series of factors, including Corporation Tax and S.E.T. Yet if one studies the various reports of the building societies which are coming out at this time of the year one finds that they have largely been successful in holding down their administrative and management expenses.
The greatest service which the Government could perform to the building society movement would be to alleviate the massive tax burden under which it is currently labouring. Building societies are labouring under an increasingly high composite rate of Income Tax—the rate which has to be paid on dividends to their investors. While four years ago the level was 5s. 5d. in the £, it is now 6s. 5d. in the £, and on top of that has been added the monstrous burden of Corporation Tax at 42½ per cent. This is a crippling burden and it is an illusion to think otherwise.
In support of my remarks I cite the example of the building society with which I am connected. Twenty-five years ago it had assets of £8,000. It now has assets of £5 million. Last year this society paid more than £110,000 in Corporation Tax and Income Tax, and one can imagine the additional number of home loans that could have been provided if that tax burden had not existed. A slowing down of loan finance causes a chain reaction which may effect half-a-dozen or more potential house sales at a time.
It is well known that building societies aim to invest any money that they do not immediately require in interest-yielding

securities. By this means additional funds are found to provide loan finance. Yet a liability to Capital Gains Tax arises when these fixed interest securities are realised. To have to pay Capital Gains Tax when one is endeavouring to build up one's reserves is manifestly unfair—all the more so when the imposition is being placed on a non-profit-making organisation whose objective is to provide the community with a service.
I said that building societies are part of the general savings movement. That is true, yet alone among the entire savings movement building societies pay taxation while Trustee Savings Banks are exempt. Why should not building societies be similarly treated? After all, building societies are dealing in terms of investments worth about £8,000 million. If the building society movement were relieved of its tax burden—I have done a rough calculation and while I may not be absolutely correct I am not far from the mark—about 50,000 additional home loans of average amount could be made available annually.
I come to the question of the escalation of house and property prices and values. I do not dissent from the statistical arguments adduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker), although I was surprised at the average house prices which he quoted. I would have put them higher.
I will speak, however, from my knowledge of the situation in Northern Ireland because I am more familiar with what is happening there. Two years ago the average price of a house was £3,000. One could, therefore, get a loan of 95 per cent. on a deposit of £150. Those same houses are now fetching £4,000. There can be no other sphere of investment in which a person can get a profit free of Capital Gains Tax liability of £1,000 in two years, or, expressed another way, an appreciation of 650 per cent. free of tax.
Is it fair that a loan recipient whose funds have been provided by investors should be entitled to flit about collecting substantial short-term tax free capital profit from the house market? I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Lewisham, West raise this point. One must wonder if the time will occur when borrowers will be asked to forgo part of their equity profit to increase the interest levels for investors.


This escalation in property values has been caused by the inflationary policies of the Government. There has been a loss of faith in paper money and the belief has grown that bricks and mortar provide the only satisfactory hedge against inflation. However, by raising interest rates the Government sets in train inflationary tendencies which quickly manifest themselves in the house market.
The reason for the 8½ per cent. mortgage rate has been expressed frequently by hon. Members. I regret this increase, but if the Government were to reduce the interest rates, as the Conservatives did, the building societies would follow suit, as was done in 1963. Thus the Government hold the key to this matter.
A great deal of indignation has been generated about the 8½ per cent. mortgage rate, and little wonder. However, it is questionable whether this rate is high enough, bearing in mind the general high level of interest rates currently prevailing. If the financial pundits are correct in their forecasts about further increases in general interest rates in the foreseeable future, the mortgage interest rate could reach 10 per cent. I pray that this will not happen but, on current forecasts, a 10 per cent. mortgage rate is on the cards.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. Joel Barnett: It is one thing to say that the level of interest rates is intolerable. It is another to suggest how they should be reduced. That was the dishonest aspect of the speech of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker).
Naturally the mortgage rate is tied to the rate of interest which building societies must give to get their funds and naturally this is all tied to international interest rates. Even if he economy had been running the way in which, for example, I and my hon Friend the Member for Lewisham West (Mr. Dickens) would have liked, with the United States' prime rate at 7½ per cent., it is not easy to see how British building societies could be doing other than offering the sort of rates which they are at present offering. For we also have to pay a higher interest rate than some other countries.
The major reason is that we are a reserve currency. At least the present Government

are trying to get us out of that situation, something which the Opposition never attempted to do. Certainly the hon. Member for Worcester did not suggest a way to get us out of the present situation.
I suggest that there are only two ways to deal with our present difficulty. One is to consider the size of building society surpluses, and these involve management and other expenses, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewis-ham, West, and the other is to provide a subsidy. We may call it a reduction in Corporation Tax or something else, but it would be a subsidy.
According to the 1966 Report of the Prices and Incomes Board, the net surplus available to building societies in 1966 was running at about 6s. 6d. per cent. Thus, even if management expenses were substantially reduced—say, by 10 per cent.—at best that surplus would be increased by 9d. While the reserve ratios of building societies are higher than they need be, as the Prices and Incomes Board pointed out, one cannot reduce the rates of interest charged by using up the whole of the reserve ratio. One can only try to do it by considering the net surpluses of building societies in a given year.
The idea that we should remove the need for that net surplus and have a Government guarantee sounds very attractive, but if we did not increase the net surplus at all, with the increasing assets of building societies, that reserve ratio would be reduced anyway; and if we were to increase the provision of houses to a rate of 500,000, which I hope will be our target one day, we would be increasing the assets by some 13 per cent. and thus running down the reserve ratio very substantially, even with a surplus of 6s. 6d. per cent. Thus, on this question of surplus the best we could achieve if we did away with it altogether and went for the seemingly attractive idea of some kind of Government guarantee would be to reduce the interest rate by only perhaps ¼ per cent.
It is as well that we should look at this and recognise that such a Government guarantee would be, in itself, effectively a subsidy; and it could be a much more costly subsidy than any normal, straightforward subsidy, because by removing the financial discipline from the building


societies by giving a Government guarantee, or any kind of guarantee, the cost could be much more than a reduction in the interest rate of ¼ per cent. The loss could be heavy in terms of efficiency and in real terms to building societies if they did not have any kind of financial discipline or any need for a net surplus or ratio of reserves. While, therefore, it sounds attractive to say that we should reduce the interest rate by having no net surplus, and having a Government subsidy, it is clear that that would be no answer.
If we want to do something to help why not an outright subsidy, instead of talking of playing about with cuts in Corporation Tax and net surplus? I am certain that the House would have been interested in the Opposition's views on this but we did not get them and I suppose one should not expect them in a debate of this kind from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcester. The provision of decent homes is of vital importance to all of us and therefore the question of a subsidy for their provision in the context of high interest rates is something we should consider. But in talking of any possible subsidy we must bear in mind that we are talking about a subsidy for, say 3½ million mortgage payers. There are in this country something like 17½ to 18 million households so if we are giving subsidies to 3½ million we must consider this whole problem in the context of all home dwellers. This brings me to the question of interest rates and subsidies generally, because council house rents or private rents are in effect interest payments anyway.
Our whole interest structure in this country is in a completely confused mess. There are all kinds of hidden subsidies. From the report of the Prices and Incomes Board we find, even in building society mortgages, that some 32 per cent. of investors are either paying no tax or are paying the lower rate of tax so that they are, in effect, subsidising mortgage payers. The report estimated that mortgage payers are being subsidised in this way to the extent of 1 per cent. in interest terms. The whole system is crazy. It means that some old age pensioners are investing in building societies when they should not be and are thereby subsidising people who are borrowing money for house purchase.
As many of us know, there are people able to borrow very substantial sums, even at today's rates of interest, to buy dated gilt-edged stock so as to make quick capital gains whilst the interest is a charge against their Income Tax and Surtax liabilities. There are many aspects of the whole interest structure which need looking at. I would say to my right hon. Friend that we need a general inquiry into the whole facts of the interest rate structure in this country, including interest which is effectively paid by private tenants and council house tenants. That is why I believe that, although a subsidy should eventually be given, in whatever form, whether by reduction in Corporation Tax or otherwise, we should not do so without a complete study of the facts; because the effective rate of interest for standard rate taxpayers is really only 5¾ per cent. and not the 8½ per cent. that is suggested. The real interest rate effectively paid by rent payers must also be studied.
Clearly, something could be done. To achieve a 2 per cent. reduction in interest rate by way of subsidy would not cost a fortune. I estimate that it would cost £120 million gross and that the net cost after allowing for increased tax would be about £70 million. If we include a proper mortgage option scheme affecting everybody along the line the effective rate could come down to as low as 3·9 per cent. and I hope my right hon. Friend will consider those figures. I believe that it can be done. This is the only practical way of helping mortgage payers.
It is a terrible shame that in debates of this kind when people outside are waiting to hear how they could be helped in the field of lower interest rates and lower mortgage payments, we should get speeches like that we have heard from the hon. Member for Worcester. While one can, I suppose, congratulate him on being a newly-wed, we may be sure that other newly-weds who look inquiringly at his speech tomorrow will find nothing in it to help them. It is a pity that the Opposition should have chosen to deal with this important subject in the way they have today.

Mr. Anthony Barber: rose—

Mr. John Fraser: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that in raising this point of order I am not prompted by


the well-known frustration that is felt by those who may sit in the House for a long time without catching your eye, Sir; but this debate began at five o'clock and the first hour of the debate was occupied by two Front Bench speeches which involved a good deal of political bickering and very little about the subject which concerns most hon. Members. Those were followed by 45 minutes of brief and constructive speeches from back bench Members; and those are now to be followed by a speech of about half an hour from a Front Bench speaker.
You said, Mr. Speaker, that you would try to be elastic. Is not this an intolerable imbalance between the back benches and the Front Benches?

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry but this does happen in a half-day debate which is truncated. If the two Front Benches each put in two Front Bench speakers I cannot prevent them.

Mr. R. F. H. Dobson: Is not it a fact, Mr. Speaker, that when you announced the truncation of the debate you said you would look with "elastic eyes"—I believe that that was the term you used—at the clock. If that is so, I had thought we were talking about a much longer period for backbench speakers on this occasion and would ask you whether you would consider calling some more back-bench speakers before speakers from a Front Bench.

Mr. Speaker: I must call a Front Bench speaker when he rises. I am sorry that my next metaphor is catching me up.

6.49 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Barber: Naturally I sympathise very much with the two hon. Gentlemen who have just raised points of order and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary does, too. The problem is that we have other important business to follow and, whatever you, Mr. Speaker, may decide about the future, perhaps it would be convenient if I were to say a few words now. I know that it is the Chief Secretary's intention, if he catches your eye, to follow me briefly and I will be as brief as I can. I am sorry that I shall not have time to reply to some of the very interesting points made by my

hon. Friend for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) and the hon. Member for Hey-wood and Royton (Mr. Barnett). But this has been a useful debate.
We started by discussing the Motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) which is concerned with two matters only: the increasing cost of home ownership and the election pledges of the party opposite. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister virtually ignored both those points and perhaps that was understandable. I propose to concentrate on them because what we have been debating today have been the harsh consequences of the Government's economic policy as it affects more than 3 million people who are buying their homes through building societies.
I suppose that a great many will be able one way or another to make the necessary sacrifices, to tighten their belts somewhat and to cope with the increased charges that are to be made, but, make no mistake, for many what the Government have now achieved will bring tragic hardship and intolerable financial worry. There is no doubt about that. I believe it will also bring bitter resentment against those who deceived them in the past. One is bound to ask, what are the consequences in human terms of the Labour Government's achievement of a mortgage interest rate of 8½ per cent? Many of the 3 million people who in recent years decided to buy their homes through a building society worked out with the utmost care the financial liability they would have to shoulder.
For many of these would-be home owners this was probably the biggest decision they had to take during the early years of their married life. They took it after weeks and sometimes months of anxious consideration. They took it on the strength of what the Prime Minister and other senior Ministers had told them. They took it in the naïve trust and belief that those who now govern us could be relied upon to keep their word. The deception of the home owner was the most effective and most consistent confidence trick which the Prime Minister has played. Just because it was so effective I believe it will never be forgotten by the 3 million who were deceived.
We are now told by the right hon. Gentleman and others that if the home owner cannot afford the new rate of 8½ per cent. the period of the mortgage can be extended. Those people we are talking about set out to own their homes. They did not set out to saddle themselves for the rest of their lives with a burden of debt which some of them can never hope to discharge. This is the reality of the situation that we are discussing. Already individual cases of real hardship are becoming known. We have read of some of them recently in the Press. In 1964, when the Labour Party's promises were being spewed out with careless abandon by all and sundry who sit on the Front Bench opposite, a couple who bought a house on mortgage and decided to pay over 25 years would have had the unqualified ownership of that house within their working lives, but of course in 1964 the mortgage rate was 6 per cent. whereas it is now 8½ per cent. With their growing families many of these people simply cannot afford the increased rate of 8½ per cent., and many of these people will never— I mean never—own their homes. In a great many of these cases, because they could not afford the succession of increased rates which have gone on since 1964, the mortgage will not be paid off even within 100 years, and certainly will never be paid off in their lifetime.
I do not know if this is what the Minister meant in his opening speech when he said, "We have a solid record of constructive achievement." This is real hardship for individuals, but there was not a word about it from the Minister. Does he care, or does he not? He said that he was not complacent, but he has not devoted his mind to individual cases of this kind. There he sits sniggering to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Does the Chancellor know how this affects individuals?
Now the right hon. Gentleman has given a new and cruel twist to the phrase, "The never, never system". And, on top of all this, no longer can newly married couples turn to local authorities, because in every year since right hon. Gentleman opposite came to office they have cut the sums available for local authority mortgages. The figures are: 1965–66, £191 million; 1966–67, £135

million; 1967–68, £130 million; 1968–69, £95 million; and now right down to £30 million. What does this mean? What does it mean for individual local authorities? It means that, as a result, more than half the local authorities with mortgage schemes will be provided with only enough funds to enable them to grant two or three mortgages each.
The Minister said with regard to some areas, "We have stopped the wicked and foolish sale of council houses." The truth is that, not every hon. Member opposite, but there are some in high places in the Labour Government whose vision of a new Britain is still a nation of council house tenants. This is a fundamental difference between the parties.

Hon. Members: Names.

Mr. Peter Mahon: rose—

Mr. Barber: I must not give way because I want to end my speech by 7 o'clock.
Even the Government's mortgage option scheme has been turned down by 98 per cent. of those with mortgages. And many of the 4 per cent. who opted for the scheme now bitterly regret the decision they took. It is incredible that the right hon. Gentleman, in the light of these figures, could muster the effrontery to refer to what he called the success of the option mortgage scheme. As my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Murton) said, it has been a dismal failure. Now we hear from hon. and right hon. Members opposite a complaint that we should never have had a 8½ per cent. mortgage rate if it had not been for other high interest rates. The home owner is entitled to retort that it is a pity that right hon. Members opposite did not think of that in 1964 and 1966.
Many of my hon. Friends and many hon. Members opposite will have read in the newspaper this morning that the Labour candidate at Walthamstow, East told the electors last night that help would come
as soon as the economy is in the kind of state at which we are aiming.
He can tell that again to the 5,000 home owners in Walthamstow, East! Since this Government have been in office the mortagage interest rate has gone up from 6 per cent. to 6¾ per cent., to 7⅛ per cent., to 7⅝ per cent., and now to 8½ per cent.


I am not surprised that the Amendment in the name of the Prime Minister and others makes not the slightest attempt to rebut the reference in the Motion to Election pledges.

Mr. Bidwell: rose—

Mr. Barber: No, I cannot give way— [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."].

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the right hon. Gentleman does not give way the hon. Member must resume his seat.

Mr. Barber: The Minister went out of his way to refer to the speech made by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown), the 3 per cent. speech. I ignore the right hon. Member for Belper because although the Prime Minister, with typical guile, exploited that speech when it served his purpose during that General Election, he has now dropped the right hon. Gentleman. When the Minister says that this just was not true and that this gave a wholly wrong impression, it suggests that he has forgotten that when the Prime Minister was questioned about that speech he said it had
highlighted once again the fact that after 13 years of Conservative administration owner occupiers—including myself—are paying 6 per cent.
He went on to give the unequivocal assurance:
We intend to make a substantial reduction for new owner occupiers and as soon as possible after that to review the position of existing ones and get those rates down too.
The Minister says that he resents the charge of lack of faith and of deceit. The fact is that the Prime Minister again and again and again gave the most specific and unequivocal of undertakings to the nation on this very subject. The Minister referred to none of these. During the election the Prime Minister told the nation this:
We shall help people seeking to buy a home, and reduce the mortgage payments they have to make.
Again, only a few days later, he said this:
We believe that the Government should act positively to help owner-occupiers by lowering interest rates.
There were no qualifications or conditions. It was just a blatant political promise calculated to win the election, and it certainly paid off. It was a shocking

and cruel deception, a deception which was followed by virtually every right hon. and hon. Member on the Government Front Bench. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite will perhaps now understand why those who are today struggling to keep up their mortgage payments conclude with bitterness that they were duped, and that they were duped by men who cheated their way to office. They will not forget.

7.1 p.m.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Diamond): I, too, have got but a short time at my disposal. I therefore hope that my hon. Friends and, indeed, all who have contributed to the debate from the back benches will acquit me of discourtesy if I do not attempt to reply in detail to what they have said. I have listened very carefully indeed to the suggestions which have been made. Some of them require very careful thought, as I have indicated on an earlier occasion, and I will certainly give careful thought to them.
I did not attempt myself to interrupt the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber), because I realised the pressure of time upon him. I hope, similarly, that the House will acquit me of any discourtesy if I do not give way.
I want to deal with the two points which the right hon. Gentleman has again referred to. One was the question of hardship. The other was the question of pledges. In opening the debate my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government—I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman denied this—went through the party manifesto page by page, referred to all the items dealing with the housing programme, and explained how it was that we had made those promises, what we had done about them, and how we had honestly and faithfully carried them out. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I can only recommend that all those who are contributing to the general noise but who did not grace us with their company during my right hon. Friend's speech should pay him the courtesy of reading it tomorrow. They will then be able to judge whether what I am saying is right. I would wish to devote myself to the other charge which the right hon. Gentleman made, the charge of hardship.
There were two minor charges, in addition. One was that we were not concerned with home ownership but were looking to a nation of council tenants only. This is just the sheerest nonsense having regard to the figures that my right hon. Friend has disclosed. There are far more home owners now than there were when the right hon. Gentleman was a Treasury Minister. The proportion of home ownership has grown notwithstanding that the number of houses we have built has been far greater than the number the Tories built. The proportion has grown until now every other family owns their own house. That was not the case under the Tory Government. I am talking about the trend. I am talking about the right hon. Gentleman's curious assertion that our policies lead to a falling number of home owners, not an increasing number of home owners. In fact, it is precisely the reverse, as my right hon. Friend made absolutely clear.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to complain about the reduction in the resources available to local authorities. If these resources were increased, it would mean an increase in public expenditure, as the right hon. Gentleman knows full well. However, he complained about the falling resources available to local authorities to lend on to would-be purchasers. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman's complaint was that the rate was too high. I thought that he was complaining about the cost, the hardship to the mortgagor in paying the rate. Local authorities are not offering money at any reduced rate. They are offering money at a higher rate than that being charged by building societies. Anybody who wanted to borrow from a local authority would have to pay more to the local authority than he would have to pay to a building society. So how would it solve the problem that the right hon. Gentleman posed of the individual who is suffering hardship because he has to pay 8½ per cent. to a building society if he were called on by a local authority to pay 9 per cent. or even more? The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways.
I want now to turn my attention to the essence of the charge which arises from the Motion, the claim that hardship is being suffered. I do not think that in the short time available I need go over the problems of the building societies

themselves, except to say this. They are, as we know, affected by the reality of shortage of funds if they are to carry out their duties. The shortage of funds happened because they are in competition for funds. Because they are in competition they had to raise their rates. We all recognise that.
No hon. Member opposite has suggested that the building societies should have been prevented from doing this. Time and time again when the right hon. Gentleman was a Treasury Minister, in answer to Questions from Opposition Members and from his own hon. Friends inquiring if he would interfere with the building societies, he gave the very short and Chief Secretary-like reply, "No, Sir". That was his answer when asked if he would interfere with the building societies. So the Tories are not suggesting that we should adopt any attitude like that.
I want to make it quite clear, not only that the building societies have to compete for funds, but that the present rates which are being charged by building societies are neither out of step with other rates being charged by finance houses for finance, nor out of step with rates obtaining in other countries. Indeed, one hon. Member who is, I think, connected with a building society or is in that field—[Interruption.]—perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps I was told he is an estate agent. Anyway, he speaks with great knowledge on these subjects. He said that the rate being offered for mortgages other than by building societies was as high as 15 per cent.
I repeat that the rate being offered by building societies is reasonable in relation to rates being offered elsewhere in Britain, and it is reasonable in comparison with rates being offered in other countries. It is difficult to make a comparison with other countries, but I refer the House to the article in The Guardian of, I think it was, yesterday which summed up the comparison of rates in this country with those in other countries under the title, "Home Loans Worse Abroad". I think that that is a fair statement of the position. The position is that there are rates which are being charged which are reasonable, both internally and externally, but which produce a high monthly instalment. That is the point I wanted to deal with.

Mr. David Crouch: rose—

Mr. Diamond: The hon. Gentleman must have heard me respond to his own Front Bench and say that I understood the reason why the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale did not give way and that I would expect the House to acquit me of any discourtesy if, because of shortage of time, I did not give way.
What I want to refer to about the building societies, first, is the increase which has taken place and the remark which one of my hon. Friends made about the timeliness of the increase. Having seen the building societies, I would have expected, having regard to all the facts which they gave me, that they would put up their rates at some appropriate time. I am bound to say that I was a little surprised at the speed with which they reacted. I thought it was a little hasty on their part. I thought that they should have given themselves more time to satisfy themselves that the trend on which they are relying was more established than the present time could have shown. If they had not reacted as they did, as quickly as they did, and if the trend had continued to go against them, they would have had to use their reserves in order to maintain the flow of money at the same rate.
It is an open question whether the building societies should not have dipped further into their reserves. It is an open question because it has been examined by a committee set up by the building societies themselves, and the committee came to the conclusion that the average ratio of liquidity, which is now about 15 per cent. was, if anything, too high. The minimum is 7½ per cent. One would not expect large financial institutions of this kind to go scraping along the bottom and running at a minimum, at all events for a long period; they might have to dip to that momentarily, but it would not improve their financial standing if they were doing it for a long time. But there is a vast difference, or a substantial difference, between 15 per cent. and 7½ per cent. This was one of the matters which I had in mind when, in my statement on Monday, I referred to the possibility of this aspect of the matter being considered

once more if, at an appropriate time, there was need for a reference to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

Mr. Dobson: rose—

Mr. Diamond: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me. I should be guilty of gross discourtesy if, having been unwilling to give way to an hon. Member opposite, I give way to one of my hon. Friends.
I come immediately to the problem of the hardship which is alleged. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman had been here and had listened to the debate, he would have heard my right hon. Friend deal extensively with that, and I am bound to give some attention to what one of my hon. Friends asked when he expressed considerable displeasure at the way in which the Opposition were running the debate. He asked for some solid meat, which I propose to give, and not the kind of puff-pastry which we have had from the Opposition Front Bench.
I shall deal with both aspects of the question of hardship, examining the matter with some care and giving figures to establish the point. The first part of the question turns on increasing cost, and the second part turns on ability to meet the cost.
First, there is the cost of land. This has risen, but has risen less over the past four years than over the previous four years of the Tory Government. The cost of houses I take in terms of new houses and of old houses. The price of new houses has risen by an average annual rate of 7 per cent. In the previous four years, it rose by 7½ per cent. For second-hand houses, the average annual increase in the past four years has been 6·8 per cent. In the previous four Tory years, it was 8·2 per cent. The Tory rate of increase was 20 per cent. higher than ours. That is not a very good starting point for a Motion censuring us.
The explanation cannot lie in a fall in the standard of housing, for, as my right hon. Friend made clear at the outset, more than 90 per cent. of new private houses now carry the National House-Builders Registration Council ten-year guarantee against structural defects, and jerry-building is now virtually a thing of the past.


So it is not a question of the quality of the housing.
Having considered the cost of the house and of the and, comparing like with like, I now consider the capacity of a would-be borrower to continue his instalments or to start borrowing. The way to examine this is to take the average existing case—a £3,000 mortgage, spread over 25 years, taken out by an individual with a salary of £1,600 a year. I take £1,600 a year because that is the average income of the borrower from a building society.
At those figures, as the House knows, the instalments have risen. They have risen considerably over the last five years compared with the previous five. But one must consider also the capacity of the borrower to meet the increased instalments. In 1959, the person earning £1,600 now would have been earning about £980, according to the index of salaries. At that salary, the proportion of his monthly repayments in 1959 to his monthly earnings, that is, the burden we are concerned to examine, the hardship of which we have been told, was about 24 per cent. He paid in to his building society instalments about 24 per cent. of his monthly salary. Today, that same man is paying about 18 per cent. of his monthly salary. There has been a drop.

Mr. Peter Walker: Bogus !

Mr. Diamond: I ask the hon. Gentleman to contain himself. He is not a member of the Young Tories now. He may find the figures difficult to digest, but I wish to deal with his allegation and his right hon. Friend's allegation about hardship.
The first point I make is that the comparative cost, the relative cost, of paying the instalments on this house has dropped from 24 per cent. to 18 per cent. That is some of the explanation, though not the whole, of why, in spite of the great hardship, there is, as everyone agreed throughout the debate, a queue of would-be borrowers, of people anxious to submit themselves to even further and more painful hardship.

Mr. Peter Walker: rose—

Mr. Diamond: If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to allow me to finish this section of my speech, I shall be glad to give way.
I come now to the value of the house. In 1959, on a £3,000 mortgage, it being a 75 per cent. mortgage, the value of the house was £4,000. In April last year, nearly 12 months ago, the latest date for which I have reliable figures, that kind of house was worth £7,360.
In short, the average repayment to the building society has gone up by 20 per cent., the average salary has gone up by about 60 per cent., the percentage spent on the mortgage—the burden which we are considering—comparing the Tory term of office with ours, has gone down by about one-third, and the value of the property has gone up by over 80 per cent.

Mr. Peter Walker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he not realise that the flaw in his figures lies in the three factors which he used? He used the increase in earnings. He used the increase in mortgage repayments But he failed to calculate that the same house had increased in value by 28 per cent. and, therefore, the mortgage necessary would have to have gone up by 28 per cent., too.

Mr. Diamond: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in his argument and wrong in his figures. The house has not risen in value by 28 per cent.; it has risen by 82 per cent., to be precise. I am dealing with the question of hardship on this man who is unable to continue his instalments, and I am pointing out that, as we all know— and as an ex-Tory Minister of Works said in a letter to The Times yesterday—there is no hardship on this man at all.
In short, as my right hon. Friend made clear, the facts are, comparing the Tory achievement with ours, that we have built more houses and we have built better houses. An increasing number of the houses we have built are owner-occupied. The relative cost to the owner-occupier of buying his house has fallen by about a third. In addition, we have lightened the burden by the rates assistance we have given, and the assistance we have given in the scheme to reduce the cost to the small taxpayer by 2 per cent.
In all those circumstances, as our achievement is infinitely better than that of the Opposition, I cannot see how they have the effrontery to criticise us.

Mr. Crouch: On a point of order. We have hardly had a debate at all. There have been eight speakers, only four of them from the back benches, and no intervention was allowed in the last two speeches. It has been an unsatisfactory debate.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That comment was made from a different angle earlier

in the afternoon, when I pointed out that it is a truncated debate. On such a half-day, if there are four Front Bench speeches this kind of thing happens.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 269, Noes 215.

Division No. 131.]
AYES
[7.23 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Anderson, Donald
Ellis, John
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Archer, Peter
English, Michael
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Ennals, David
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Ensor, David
Kelley, Richard


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Kenyon, Clifford


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lawson, George


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Faulds, Andrew
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Barnes, Michael
Fernyhough, E.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)


Barnett, Joel
Finch, Harold
Lee, John (Reading)


Beaney, Alan
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Bence, Cyril
Fletcher, Rt. Hn. SirEric (Islington, E.)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Loughlin, Charles


Bidwell, Sydney
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Luard, Evan


Binns, John
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Bishop, E. S.
Ford, Ben
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Booth, Albert
Forrester, John
McCann, John


Boston, Terence
Fowler, Gerry
MacColl, James


Boyden, James
Fraser, John (Norwood)
MacDermot, Niall


Bradley, Tom
Freeson, Reginald
Macdonald, A. H.


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Galpern, Sir Myer
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Brooks, Edwin
Gardner, Tony
Mackie, John


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Garrett, W. E.
Maclennan, Robert


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Ginsburg, David
McNamara, J. Kevin


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Cordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
MacPherson, Malcolm


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Buchan, Norman
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mapp, Charles


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Marks, Kenneth


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Marquand, David


Cant, R. B.
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Carmichael, Neil
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mayhew, Christopher


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hannan, William
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Coleman, Donald
Harper, Joseph
Mikardo, Ian


Concannon, J. D.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Millan, Bruce


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Haseldine, Norman
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Crawshaw, Richard
Hattersley, Roy
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Cronin, John
Hazell, Bert
Molloy, William


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Henley, Rt. Hn. Denis
Moonman, Eric


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Heffer, Eric S.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Henig, Stanley
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Dalyell, Tam
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Hilton, W. S.
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Davidson. Arthur (Accrington)
Hooley, Frank
Moyle, Roland


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Horner, John
Murray, Albert


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Neal, Harold


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Newens, Stan


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Norwood, Christopher


Davis, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hoy, James
Orbach, Maurice


Delargy, Hugh
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Orme, Stanley


Dell, Edmund
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Oswald, Thomas


Dempsey, James
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Dewar, Donald
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Hunter, Adam
Padley, Walter


Dickens, James
Hynd, John
Paget, R. T.


Dobson, Ray
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Palmer, Arthur


Doig, Peter
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Driberg, Tom
Janner, Sir Barnett
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Dunnett, Jack
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St. P'cras, S.)
Pavitt, Laurence


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Eadie, Alex
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Edelman, Maurice
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)





Pentland, Norman
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Sheldon, Robert
Wallace, George


Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Watkins, David (Consett)


Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)


Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Short, Rt. Hn. Eaward (N 'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Weitzman, David


Price, William (Rugby)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Wellbeloved, James


Probert, Arthur
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Whitaker, Ben


Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Silverman, Julius
Whitlock, William


Randall, Harry
Skeffington, Arthur
Wilkins, W. A.


Rankin, John
Small, William
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Rees, Merlyn
Spriggs, Leslie
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Roberts. Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Taverne, Dick
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)
Thornton, Ernest
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Tinn, James
Winnick, David


Roebuck, Roy
Tomney, Frank
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Tuck, Raphael
Woof, Robert


Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Urwin, T. W.



Rowlands, E.
Varley, Eric G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ryan, John
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Mr. Ioan L. Evans and




Mr. Neil McBride.


NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Eden, Sir John
Lane, David


Astor, John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)
Elliott, R. W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Awdry, Daniel
Emery, Peter
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Fortescue, Tim
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Balniel, Lord
Foster, Sir John
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Longden, Gilbert


Batsford, Brian
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Lubbock, Eric


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Gibson-Watt, David
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Bell, Ronald
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
MacArthur, Ian


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McMaster, Stanley


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Glover, Sir Douglas
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Biffen, John
Glyn, Sir Richard
McNair-Wilson, Patrick


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maddan, Martin


Black, Sir Cyril
Goodhart, Philip
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Blaker, Peter
Goodhew, Victor
Marten, Neil


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Gower, Raymond
Maude, Angus


Body, Richard
Grant, Anthony
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Bossom, Sir Clive
Gresham Cooke, R.
Mawby, Ray


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Grieve, Percy
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C


Braine, Bernard
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Bromley -Davenport, Lt.-Col. SirWalter
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Miscampbell, Norman


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Monro, Hector


Bryan, Paul
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W)
Montgomery, Fergus


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Burden, F. A.
Hastings, Stephen
Murton, Oscar


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Hawkins, Paul
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)
Hay, John
Neave, Airey


Carlisle, Mark
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Llonel
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Channon, H. P. G.
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Chichester-Clark, R.
Heseltine, Michael
Nott, John


Clark, Henry
Hill, J. E. B.
Onslow, Cranley


Cooke, Robert
Hirst, Geoffrey
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Corfield, F. V.
Holland, Philip
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Costain, A. P.
Hordern, Peter
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Peel, John


Crouch, David
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Peyton, John


Crowder, F. P.
Iremonger, T. L.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pink, R. Bonner


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pounder, Rafton


Dance, James
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Price, David (Eastleigh)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Prior, J. M. L.


Dean, Paul
Kershaw, Anthony
Pym, Francis


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Kimball, Marcus
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kirk, Peter
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Doughty, Charles
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Drayson, G. B.
Lambton, Viscount





Rees-Davies, W. R.
Speed, Keith
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Stainton, Keith
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Wall, Patrick


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Stodart, Anthony
Walters, Dennis


Ridsdale, Julian
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Ward, Dame Irene


Robson Brown, Sir William
Summers, Sir Spencer
Weatherill, Bernard


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Tapsell, Peter
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Royle, Anthony
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Russell, Sir Ronald
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Scott, Nicholas
Temple, John M.
Woodnutt, Mark


Scott-Hopkins, James
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Worsley, Marcus


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Younger, Hn. George


Silvester, Frederick
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John



Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Vickers, Dame Joan
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Smith, John (London & W'minster)
Waddington, David
Mr. Jasper More and




Mr. Reginald Eyre.

Main Question, as amended, put:—

The House divided: Ayes 255, Noes 215.

Division No. 132.]
AYES
[7.32 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Driberg, Tom
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Anderson, Donald
Dunnett, Jack
Hunter, Adam


Archer, Peter
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Hynd, John


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Eadie, Alex
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Janner, Sir Barnett


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Barnes, Michael
Ellis, John
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St. P'cras, S.)


Barnett, Joel
English, Michael
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Beaney, Alan
Ennals, David
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Bence, Cyril
Ensor, David
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Faulds, Andrew
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Bidwell, Sydney
Fernyhough, E.
Jones, Rt. Hn. SirElwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Binns, John
Finch, Harold
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Bishop, E. S.
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Booth, Albert
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Kelley. Richard


Boston, Terence
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Kenyon, Clifford


Boyden, James
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Bradley, Tom
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lawson, George


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Ford, Ben
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Brooks, Edwin
Forrest, George
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Fowler, Gerry
Lee, John (Reading)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Freeson, Reginald
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham. N.)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch& F'bury)
Gardner, Tony
Loughlin, Charles


Buchan, Norman
Garrett, W. E.
Luard, Evan


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Ginsburg, David
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn, P. C.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
McBride, Neil


Cant, R. B.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
McCann, John


Carmichael, Neil
Grey, Charles (Durham)
MacColl, James


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
MacDermot, Niall


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Macdonald, A. H.


Coleman, Donald
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Concannon, J. D.
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mackie, John


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Maclennan, Robert


Crawshaw, Richard
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hannan, William
MacPherson, Malcolm


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Haseldine, Norman
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Dalyell, Tam
Hattersley, Roy
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Hazell, Bert
Mapp, Charles


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Marks, Kenneth


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Heffer, Eric S.
Marquand, David


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Henig, Stanley
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hilton, W. S.
Maxwell, Robert


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hooley, Frank
Mayhew, Christopher


Delargy, Hugh
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Dell, Edmund
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Mikardo, Ian


Dempsey, James
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Millan, Bruce


Dewar, Donald
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Hoy, James
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Dickens, James
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn, Anglesey)
Molloy, William


Dobson, Ray
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Doig, Peter
Hughes. Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)




Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Rees, Merlyn
Tuck, Raphael


Morris, John (Aberavon)
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.
Urwin, T. W.


Moyle, Roland
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Varley, Eric G.


Murray, Albert
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Neal, Harold
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Newens, Stan
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Wallace, George


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Norwood, Christopher
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)


Oakes, Gordon
Roebuck, Roy
Weitzman, David


Orbach, Maurice
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Wellbeloved, James


Orme, Stanley
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Whitaker, Ben


Oswald, Thomas
Ryan, John
Whitlock, William


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Padley, Walter
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Palmer, Arthur
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Silverman, Julius
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Skeffington, Arthur
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Pavitt, Laurence
Small, William
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Spriggs, Leslie
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Winnick, David


Pentland, Norman
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Woof, Robert


Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Taverne, Dick



Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Price, William (Rugby)
Thornton, Ernest
Mr. Ioan L. Evans and


Randall, Harry
Tinn, James
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Rankin, John
Tomney, Frank





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Hordern, Peter


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Howell, David (Guildford)


Astor, John
Dean, Paul
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Iremonger, T. L.


Awdry, Daniel
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Doughty, Charles
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Drayson, G. B.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Balniel, Lord
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Eden, Sir John
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Batsford, Brian
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kershaw, Anthony


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Kimball, Marcus


Bell, Ronald
Emery, Peter
Kirk, Peter


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)
Fortescue, Tim
Lambton, Viscount


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Foster, Sir John
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Biffen, John
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Lane, David


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Galbraith, Hn T. G.
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Black, Sir Cyril
Gibson-Watt, David
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Blaker, Peter
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)


Body, Richard
Gilmour, Cir John (Fife, E.)
Lloyd, Ian (p'tsm'th, Langstone)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Glover, Sir Douglas
Lloyd. Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Glyn, Sir Richard
Longden, Gilbert


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Lubbock, Eric


Braine, Bernard
Goodhart, Philip
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Goodhew, Victor
MacArthur, Ian


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. SirWalter
Gower, Raymond
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Grant, Anthony
McMaster, Stanley


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Gresham Cooke. R.
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Bryan, Paul
Grieve, Percy
McNair-Wilson, Patrick


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maddan, Martin


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Marten, Neil


Burden, F. A.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maude, Angus


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mawby, Ray


Carlisle, Mark
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Channon, H. P. G.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr, S. L. C.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Clark, Henry
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Cooke, Robert
Hastings, Stephen
Miscampbell, Norman


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hawkins, Paul
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Corfield, F. V.
Hay, John
Monro, Hector


Costain, A. P.
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Montgomery, Fergus


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Crouch, David
Heseltine. Michael
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Crowder, F. P.
Hill, J. E. B.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Hirst, Geoffrey
Murton, Oscar


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Dance, James
Holland, Philip
Neave, Airey







Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Temple, John M.


Noble, RI. Hn. Michael
Ridsdale, Julian
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Nott, John
Robson Brown, Sir William
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Onslow, Cranley
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Royle, Anthony
Waddington, David


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Russell, Sir Ronald
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Scott, Nicholas
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Peel, John
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wall, Patrick


Peyton, john
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Walters, Dennis


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Silvester, Frederick
Ward, Dame Irene


Pink, R. Bonner
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Weatherill, Bernard


Pounder, Rafton
Smith, John (London & W'minster)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Speed, Keith
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stainton, Keith
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Prior, J. M. L.
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Pym, Francis
Stodart, Anthony
Woodnutt, Mark


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Worsley, Marcus


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Summers, Sir Spencer
Younger, Hn. George


Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Tapsell, Peter



Rees-Davies, W. R.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Mr. Jasper More and


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Mr. Reginald Eyre.

Resolved,
That this House, recalling the help given by the present Government to home owners through the Option Mortgage Scheme, the Rates Rebate Scheme and the domestic element of the Rate Support Grant and the fact that more houses for owner occupation were built during the last year than in any other postwar year, approves the policies of Her Majesty's Government designed to increase home ownership in all sections of the community.

DEFENCE (AIR) ESTIMATES, 1969–70, Vote A

Mr. Speaker: We now come to Vote A of the Defence (Air) Estimates. May I announce, with regard to Amendment to the Motion on Vote A in the name of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) and the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), that I cannot forecast whether either of those hon. Members will be successful in catching the eye of the Chair during the debate on Vote A. If either of them is successful, he will have an opportunity of moving that Amendment, as indeed any other hon. Member would.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: On a point of order. Some hon. Members are under the impression that this debate has to end at 12 o'clock. Can I ask you to confirm that it is the case that, provided the Motion for the suspension of the Ten o'clock Rule is carried, the debate can continue thereafter and there is no particular set time at which it must end?

Mr. Speaker: . I cannot foretell the future. All I can say is that on the Order Paper is a Suspension Motion which suggests that the debate might go on "… at this day's Sitting at any hour …".

Whether that "any hour" needs to be taken literally will depend on circumstances over which I have no control.

7.44 p.m.

The Minister of Defence for Equipment (Mr. John Morris): I beg to move,
That a number of Officers, Airmen and Airwomen, not exceeding 118,000, all ranks, be maintained for Air Force Service, during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1970.
This is, I know, one occasion when my noble Friend, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force regrets that he may not stand at this Dispatch Box. For me, however, it is a particular pleasure to handle this Air Estimates Debate at this point in time. Last year was an occasion for looking back with pride on the 50 years of achievement which the Royal Air Force completed on 1st April. This year we can look forward again. And I am sure we can be confident that the Royal Air Force will acquit itself with the same distinction in its vital rôle in the future.
In addition to summarising the position on Air Votes for 1969–70, I propose to deal with four main themes affecting the Royal Air Force—equipment, operational effectiveness, organisation and personnel.
First, a brief word about the money figures themselves. The total of Air Votes for 1969–70 is up on last year. By comparison with the original provision in 1968–69 Estimates, there is an increase of about £38 million. However, we took a Winter Supplementary for an extra £9,500,000, so, by comparison with the adjusted total, the increase is about £28,500,000. If pay and price increases


are discounted, the increases in real terms are £13,500,000 as compared with the original Estimates, and £4 million as compared with the revised Estimates.
The greater part of the increase is on Vote 7, the Vote which covers all the Royal Air Force's production requirements, and this is accounted for by the major aircraft re-equipment programme on which the Government embarked a few years ago. Payments for British aircraft will be higher next year, as will payments under Subhead 7H for the American Phantom and Hercules aircraft purchased under the credit arrangement. The provision under this subhead is based on the assumption that all the progress payments falling due in 1969–70 will be covered by credit, but I should mention that the existing credit arrangement does not take us beyond the end of the current American fiscal year, that is 30th June, 1969. We hope to have discussions shortly with the American authorities about our credit requirements for the following fiscal year.
I think that only two of the other Votes call for special comment. On Vote 1, there is a reduction of £3,250,000, which reflects the lower personnel numbers, mainly resulting from the general rundown in the size of the Force, following the decision to withdraw from east of Suez. On Vote 9, covering pensions and gratuities, there is a reduction of £3,500,000 because we expect to have to release rather fewer men this year under the redundancy scheme.
Now to the first of my main themes— equipment. I do not intend to dwell too long on this this afternoon—partly because I spoke at some length in last week's defence debate about the position on combat aircraft, both as regards the re-equipment starting in the coming year with Phantoms, Harriers, Buccaneers and Nimrods, and as regards the Jaguar and the multi-rôle combat aircraft of the future; and partly because I have a lot of other ground to cover as well.
There are, however, several other important future projects which will make their contribution to the Royal Air Force's capabilities and of which I must make brief mention.
There are, for example, two missile projects—Rapier and Martel. From 1972,

when delivery of Rapier to the Royal Air Force will begin, it will be operated by the R.A.F. Regiment and will provide defence against low-level air attack. Martel is, as hon. Members will remember, another project which we are undertaking with France, we expect it in service in 1971. This is an advanced stand-off weapon, that is to say, it is launched some way from the target, while the launching aircraft remains outside the range of the defences. It is being developed in two forms—the anti-radar version, and the television version, which is controlled visually through its television guidance system. The weapon is designed to have a very high order of accuracy, and will be used by the Nimrod and Buccaneer.
The Royal Air Force also has SA.330 helicopters on order. This project is part of the Anglo-French helicopter package deal; the package consisting of the SA330, which is where the R.A.F.'s main interest lies, and the SA340 and WG13 helicopters. Deliveries of the SA330 to the R.A.F. were due to start in 1970–71. The R.AF will employ it in tactical support of the Army.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On 28th February, the hon. Gentleman said in reply to a Parliamentary Question that it was not the normal practice to reveal unit costs of aircraft like the SA330 and the SA340. Will he explain why not? Are there good reasons for this?

Mr. Morris: As I explained to my hon. Friend in the answer that I gave on that occasion, it is not the practice traditionally to reveal details of this kind or of the ranges of weapons of the forces. This practice has been in existence for a long time, and I am sure that my hon. Friend is well aware of the reasons for it.
Before my hon. Friend intervened, I was dealing with the SA330. The Royal Air Force will employ it in tactical support of the Army. In this rôle it will operate beside the Wessex, although compared with the latter it has a much improved performance. Of particular interest is the fact that the SA330 has been designed to be air-portable and can be prepared for deployment by air, and reassembled at the other end, much more quickly than our existing helicopters.
Having mentioned a new helicopter to be used in the transport rôle, it would be wrong if I did not remind hon. Members that, with the completion of deliveries of the Hercules and the buildup of the Belfast force, the general re-equipment of the R.A.F's transport forces which has been in progress now for the last few years, will then be complete.
So, with four fine new combat aircraft, with the re-equipment of the transport force virtually complete, and with a number of new projects still to come, the Royal Air Force is in a healthy state to start its second half century.
The Royal Air Force is acquiring further responsibilities as well as new equipment; this year it will start taking over the tasks of maritime air defence and strike, and it will assume these in their entirety by 1972 when the carrier force phases out. Maritime support is not new to the Royal Air Force, but it recognises its great responsibilities to the Royal Navy when the carriers will be out of service. Much planning and discussion are already taking place between the two Services to ensure smooth and ready co-operation. The R.A.F's first Phantoms and Buccaneers will give new impetus to training with the Royal Navy on air defence and strike operations in support of the Fleet, so that, when the carriers go, the support that the R.A.F. can offer in these areas will be in the fine tradition established by the Fleet Air Arm.

Mr. Patrick Wall: Will the Minister explain how these aircraft can support the Fleet or convoys which are well out of range of land bases?

Mr. Morris: We have on several occasions traversed this ground. We have gone into it at Question Time and during debates, and I do not think that I can add anything to what we have discussed this year and last year in some detail, as the hon. Gentleman will recall.
Turning now to the second of my main themes, I should like to pay tribute to the high standards of operational effectiveness which the Service achieves with its present aircraft.
The Royal Air Force has a highly-developed capability for mobility and

speed of deployment, which are of the essence of air power. This capability will be further developed as new aircraft are brought into service but, meanwhile, "V"-bombers, Canberras and Lightnings continue to contribute a formidable strike and air defence force which can be rapidly deployed both in and beyond the N.A.T.O. area, whenever we may have a part to play in deterring or facing aggression.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will my hon. Friend say to what extent the Royal Air Force has co-operated in the operation in Anguilla? What aircraft of the Royal Air Force were used, and will he give an idea of the cost?

Mr. Morris: My hon. Friend has raised the issue of the Caribbean. As he will recall, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs this afternoon made a full statement about the Anguilla operation, and I do not think he will expect me to deal with the broader aspects of that in my speech on the Air Estimates.
While I cannot, and he does not expect me to, give figures of what exactly is involved, I can tell him that what has been done today underlines the fact that this operation is yet another demonstration that we have at our disposal an effective general capability, based on a powerful air transport force, which enables us to deploy forces with great speed and at short notice to remote parts of the world. He does not expect me to fill in the details of what was employed in this operation.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: Why not?

Mr. Morris: This operation, as the hon. Member knows, has taken place during today. We have had from the Foreign Secretary a report of what has happened to date, and I do not think it would be right for me now to spell out in detail the strength of the forces and the type of aircraft used.

Mr. Lubbock: What possible harm would there be in giving the House the information which the hon. Gentleman has asked for? What aircraft were involved in the operation? There cannot be any security reasons for withholding the information.

Mr. Morris: I have dealt with the general issue of what has been done today as an indication of the use of our general capability. I will consider during the debate whether it would be right for me to spell out the details of what exactly was involved. Traditionally, ranges and costs are not given, and I would like to consider how far I can do this. This operation has taken place only within the last few hours, but if I can fill in further details I will seek to accommodate hon. Members.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am sorry to press the point. I do not expect my hon. Friend to give exact details, but surely when our finances are in such difficulty, to put it mildly, the Royal Air Force must get an approximate estimate of the cost of operations such as this. I want only an approximate estimate of what it will cost to take the troops there.

Mr. Morris: My hon. Friend is asking his question while the operation is continuing. It would be much more advantageous, if this figure can be given, if he were to ask it after the operation has been completed. I will during the debate consider what material can be given within a matter of hours after the operation has taken place. I do not know if it would be right and proper for me to do so, but if I can, I will, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance.

Mr. Onslow: The hon. Gentleman has said that the operation is continuing. Surely there will not be a need for reinforcements?

Mr. Morris: The hon. Member knows exactly what I am saying. He is being frivolous, and he knows it.
If I may be allowed to continue, we have recently had a first-class example of the R.A.F.'s mobility in Exercise Piscator. The purpose of this exercise was to reinforce the Royal Air Force in Singapore with ten Lightning fighters from No. 11 Squadron, which is stationed at Leuchars in Scotland. The first pair of aircraft covered the 8,000 miles journey in three days: they left Scotland on 6th January and arrived in Singapore on the 8th. All the aircraft were in the Far East by 11th January. The total flying time of each aircraft was about 17 hours. This very rapid deployment

was made possible by the use of a force of tanker aircraft. On the outward journey, each Lightning was refuelled twelve times in flight and, in consequence, had to land only twice during the flight— at Bahrein and Gan.
This journey to Singapore was completed in two days less than was taken by the only previous deployment of a Lightning force of this size from the United Kingdom to the Far East, and in an emergency we could cut down on this still further and get the same number of aircraft there using the same tanker force in four days.
When the aircraft got to Singapore, the force was turned round immediately and was ready for operational flight within an hour of completing the journey from the United Kingdom. The Lightnings stayed in the Far East for a month, and during this time they undertook operational training with the resident Lightning Squadron. They returned to the United Kingdom at the beginning of February.
We plan to carry out similar exercises in the future.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that, after 17 hours' continuous flight, the pilots would have been ready within an hour to enter into engagement?

Mr. Morris: No. I was saying that the aircraft, in terms of flying time, took the time which I have specified to fly there. But it was staggered over a number of days. From the time that the whole flight was there, the force was ready to operate within the hour that I have mentioned, if it were necessary. I am indicating the general capability that we have, and this is an illustration of it.
While paying tribute to the operational efficiency of the Service for which my noble Friend has particular responsibility, I should not forget the Meteorological Office, the cost of which is borne on Air Votes, though it gives a service to the whole community. I know of the interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) in this area.
In 1968, the number of inquiries for weather forecasts, warnings and other services from the public and industry rose by 11 per cent. to a new record total of 1·4million. Inquiries from agriculture


rose by 22 per cent., from the building industry by 18 per cent. and from surface transport by 13 per cent. A new service of particular value to shipping has been the introduction on a routine basis of weather routing for vessels using the North Atlantic. Over 100 ships have been routed during the year, and considerable success has been achieved in diverting them from the areas of worst weather, with consequent savings in time, fuel and damage to ships and cargoes. Climatological investigations in connection with problems of agriculture, hydrology, civil engineering, building and roads have also increased.

Mr. John Ellis: It is clear from the figures that the vast amount of money spent by the Meterological Office is directly for Service use. However, it also saves the country many millions of £s, especially in terms of agriculture. In view of that, should we not consider spending more on these branches of the service?

Mr. Morris: The Meteorological Office serves the whole community, and the figures which I have given indicate the growing use of its services by the various sections of the community. As regards the financing of it and responsibility for it, if my hon. Friend catches your eye, Mr. Gourlay, I am sure that on the basis of his interest and experience he will develop the point. I am prepared to try to deal with what he has to say in the course of my winding-up speech.
I now turn to the tasks of organising and modernising the Royal Air Force so that it obtains maximum advantage from its new aircraft and weapons and can best fulfil its rôles in the 1970's— rôles which reflect our withdrawal from east of Suez and the increasing predominance of our N.A.T.O. commitments and the European theatre.
First, organisation, the third of my main themes. The streamlining of the Royal Air Force's Command struture in the United Kingdom continued last year. Bomber and Fighter Commands merged to form Strike Command on 30th April, 1968, and Signals Command became part of the same Command as No. 90 Signals Group, on 1st January this year. Flying Training and Technical Training Commands combined to form a unified Training Command on 1st June, 1968; as a

result, we were able to disband No. 25 Group on 1st July. The number of R.A.F. Commands in the United Kingdom has thus been reduced from eight to five, and will be further reduced to four when Coastal Command becomes part of Strike Command. As the former Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force explained in last year's Air Estimates debate, the revised Command structure will provide the streamlined system of operational control, required by the Royal Air Force of the 1970's; it will also enable us to achieve savings of at least £1½ million a year.
Further progress has been made with our policy of concentrating Royal Air Force units on the smallest number of stations consistent with R.A.F. requirements, and, when possible, with regional economic planning interests, and of closing those less well-equipped stations for which we have no further use. We have decided to carry out navigation, air electronics and air engineering training at a Combined Aircrew Training School to be established at Royal Air Force Finningley; this will enable us to close two R.A.F. stations and substantially to reduce a third. In addition, we have decided that, with the contraction of the Royal Air Force, we no longer need to retain as many as four equipment supply depots and that the one at Hartlebury should be closed. As a result of these changes, we shall achieve savings of £2½ million a year.
We continue to take full advantage of the use of computer techniques. The Meteorological Office has begun a major programme of modernisation and automation. The Supply Control Centre at Hendon is the hub of the R.A.F.'s automatic data processing system for the control, the provisioning and the distribution of equipment throughout the Service. The computer control system was brought into operation in January, 1966, and more than half the total inventory of R.A.F. stores is now under computer control—some 530,000 items out of a total of 900,000.
How does this affect storekeeping personnel at a Royal Air Force station? The airman storekeeper no longer has to prepare umpteen copies of demand forms for items of equipment which are under computer control—for example, spares for airframes and aero engines,


Normal replenishment of station stocks is done automatically by the computer as stores are consumed by the squadrons. Urgent requirements are notified to the Supply Control Centre at Hendon, where the computer determines where the stocks are held and arranges to make the issue.
Army aviation stores are now provisioned under R.A.F. arrangements, and, when fixed-wing operational flying by the Fleet Air Arm comes to an end, naval air stores will also be integrated with R.A.F. air stores. We shall then be able to rationalise the provisioning, stock control and stock holding of air stores for all three Services.
We are making plans to introduce a next-generation replacement computer for the R.A.F. Supply Control Centre, and we shall exploit the use of automatic data processing in the supply organisation to maximum advantage. As a complementary part of the centralised computer system, computer control has been introduced in the equipment supply depots. These will also provide modern automatic data processing methods for dealing with such depot tasks as storage and issue of equipment.
This comprehensive computer control system will enable us to improve the accuracy of provisioning and stock control, to improve supply effectiveness—by meeting demands for equipment more quickly—and to prepare more detailed costing information. Improved supply support to units is already apparent, and this and the other benefits will increase as we advance to complete computer control of all stores.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am very interested to hear about this extremely important development. However, before moving forward to new computer techniques in storage for the R.A.F., would the hon. Gentleman examine the system in use in the American Strategic Air Force, especially the one which exists at Mildenhall, in my constituency, where he will find some extremely important advances which are well worthy of examination before embarking on new systems for the R.A.F.?

Mr. Morris: I will consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestions. In my previous post, I acquainted myself a good deal with the computer systems of the coal,

oil and power industries. I have seen some of the systems of the Services. I have not seen anything nor have I been told anything of the one referred to by the hon. Gentleman.
Some 500 non-industrial posts have already been saved as a result of these computers at the depots, and, with the introduction of modern storage methods there, we expect to save some 500 industrial posts during the coming year.
We have also recently completed the transfer of 100,000 airmen's personal and pay records and personal records for 20,000 officers to a computer at the Royal Air Force Records and Pay Office at Gloucester. These accurate records are now readily available for a variety of purposes, including manpower allocation, career management, pay matters, and statistical information for manpower and establishment forecasting. This project, which has aroused great outside interest and has taken us ten years to develop from feasibility studies to full operation, is a highly sophisticated aid to management and will result in greatly increased administrative efficiency. Much clerical drudgery will be eliminated and there will be a reduction of some 700 Service and civilian staff. While the Service will benefit considerably as a whole from this speedy and efficient source of precise data. I must, of course, stress that the all-important decisions which affect an airman's career as an individual will continue to be taken by a Royal Air Force officer, warrant officer, or senior N.C.O., and not by a machine. The employment of computer on routine calculations will, in fact, enable even greater care to be taken of this aspect.
At the same time, the next stage in the employment of this advanced system is already being planned. The Royal Air Force intends to develop the use of the store of personnel data held in this pay and records computer for long-term planning and forecasting of the manpower requirements of the Service as a whole.
Now, at last, I have reached the fourth of my main themes, that of personnel. I want to pay particular attention to this this evening.
The Statement on the Defence Estimates reminds us that, with the reorientation of our defence policy completed, the Armed Forces can look forward to a period of stability and progress.


Dependant as we are on an all-regular volunteer force, we cannot relax our efforts to ensure that the Royal Air Force will have officers, airmen and airwomen in the quality and numbers it needs.
As regards the picture in 1968, recruitment of officers for aircrew duties was good, although towards the end of the year there were signs of a decline in interest; the targets for feeding pilots and navigators into training were met, and internal recruiting of serving noncommissioned aircrew provided the relatively small numbers required for training as air electronics and air engineer officers. The number enlisted during the year as N.C.O. aircrew, however, was barely satisfactory, and most of those recruited were serving as airmen in ground trades. There was a particular shortage of trainees as air electronics operators, which possibly reflects the somewhat higher standard of academic qualification that we require for this category.
In general, officer recruiting to the ground branches, for both the Royal Air Force and the Women's Royal Air Force, showed a slight improvement over the previous year, but we are still experiencing difficulty in recruiting professionally qualified men, especially for the Engineer and Medical branches, where a considerable shortfall persists. I shall come back to the problem of officer recruiting a little later, as it is a subject to which we have devoted a great deal of thought; but I should just say now that we expect to have available within a few months the results of a study of the possible need to make changes in the officer career structure.
During the year, we continued to make vigorous efforts to recruit airmen to the various ground trades of the Royal Air Force. The programme of reorganisation of the Careers Information Service continued, and we lost no opportunities of taking space at shows and exhibitions throughout the country with the help of large trailers. Nevertheless, increasing competition from industry—including the effects of the Industrial Training Act— resulted, in the first part of 1968, in a fall in the level of recruitment. However, by seizing every possible chance of putting the Royal Air Force before the public and by capitalising to the maximum extent on the 50th anniversary publicity—and here I would pay particular tribute to

the valuable rôle played by the Press, radio and television—this adverse trend was halted, and since August recruiting figures have shown some improvement. The situation is still far from ideal, and there are serious shortages in some trades, but the rate of enlistment in some others has shown a great improvement.
I am happy to say that the recruitment target for engineering technician apprentices was largely met, and we considerably increased our intake of craft apprentices, although their numbers were insufficient to meet an increased requirement. It was not possible to enlist sufficient administrative apprentices, however.
I am sorry to say that the number of airwomen recruited to the W.R.A.F. was lower last year than in 1967, but again there was an improvement towards the end of the year. Although we obtained a satisfactory number of student nurses for Princess Mary's Royal Air Force Nursing Service, the number enlisting as state enrolled nurses was disappointing.
The retention of trained men is vital to maintain experience levels and to man the force, especially in times of recruitment difficulties, and I therefore welcome, as I am sure the House does, the satisfactory number of applications for re-engagement. Nevertheless, we have to keep a balance in each trade in the age and rank structure to ensure a healthy promotion flow, which bears comparison between trades. This balance is controlled by selection boards operating against re-engagement quotas for each trade. The system is having a significant impact in correcting imbalances which existed previously.
Extensions of service have increased in comparison with previous years, although there is a tendency to accept commitments for shorter periods of service where there is a choice—for example, extensions from five years to nine years rather than to twelve.
We continue to seek to improve our methods of training, and new methods of visual presentation, including closed-circuit television, programmed instruction and the use of video-strips, are constantly being introduced. We pride ourselves on an apprentice scheme that offers a first-class course of instruction, but we are also increasing the opportunities for both


men and women entrants to receive training in skilled trades. This will improve their value to the Service and their individual career prospects.
I turn now to the all-graduate direct entry scheme and the future of Cranwell.
In the field of officer recruiting and training, one major and significant change in policy of which hon. Members are already aware is that, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration announced on 20th December last, the Royal Air Force has decided as a basic policy that all direct entrants to the General List of the main officer branches of the Service must have a degree or equivalent basic qualification.
I should like to devote a few minutes to explaining the reasons behind this change of policy and the way in which it will be implemented. I think that it might be of some assistance to the House.
It has become clear, I think, to all three Services in the last two or three years that our future permanent officers will increasingly require a high level of general education if they are to cope successfully with the ever more complex problems of defence, involving, as they do, contacts with industry, commerce, the universities and the other professions outside. At the same time, it is becoming clearer and clearer that with the growing opportunities for university education the good quality boy whom we have hitherto recruited through Cranwell will be reluctant to forgo the advantages of a university education which will be available to his contemporaries.
It is for these reasons that we have decided upon an all-graduate direct entry scheme. Because of the demands of flying training, it is desirable that a Royal Air Force officer should have completed his general education before he starts upon his flying training course. For this reason, we have decided that the degree course should be completed before entry into the Service, and we have also decided that the sensible thing to do is to utilise the resources of the civilian universities and colleges rather than attempt to set up our own degree courses within the Service. We shall hope to get our graduate entrants partly by recruiting direct from the universities and colleges and partly by greatly extending the university cadetship

scheme under which suitable boys are sponsored through their university course by the Royal Air Force.
But this new policy does not mean— and I repeat this—it does not mean that there will be no place in the Royal Air Force for the able young man who does not want or, for some reason or other, cannot get, a university place. He will continue to be able to come into the Royal Air Force as at present on a Supplementary List commission from which there will be very good opportunities to transfer to a permanent commission. The R.A.F. will continue to be a Service open to the talented from every source.
The new all-graduate direct entry policy will, of course, have profound consequences for Cranwell. With the disappearance of the traditional cadet entry in favour of a graduate entry, Cranwell will cease to be a cadet college. It will instead become the post-graduate and professional training college of the Royal Air Force. It is our intention that all graduate entrants will come into Cranwell for their basic officer and professional training. At the same time, we are examining plans for moving in other branches of officer training, with the object of using to the full the excellent facilities at Cranwell.
The new policy is already in full swing. Wherever possible, those boys who were due to enter Cranwell have already been diverted to universities or colleges to take their degrees. In the interim, those cadets entering Cranwell who are able and willing to go to a university will be given a special academic course to assist them to obtain university places after one year at Cranwell. We have taken special steps to ensure that those boys who nevertheless elect to stay at Cranwell for the full present course will not suffer in their career compared with the others, and they will follow the traditional cadet course.
Provided that graduate entries build up as planned, it is our intention that the October 1970 cadet entry into Cranwell will be the last cadet entry and that, allowing for engineering cadet entries, by 1975 Cranwell will have turned over completely to post-graduate training.
I need hardly say—I am sure the whole House is aware of this—that we are embarking upon a bold policy. We believe


it, nevertheless, to be the right one, and we have been much fortified by the immense support which we have been given by those connected with education outside. My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force has written individually to the vice-chancellor of every university, to the principals of the colleges of technology and to the headmasters of public schools and grammar schools. The overwhelming response has been in favour of our proposals. I know that the House will wish us well in our policy.

Mr. Lubbock: What about comprehensive schools?

Mr. Morris: I am not sure that all the individuals were written to personally, or whether the associations were written to, but my noble Friend attempted, in the way I have set out, to contact each person responsible for an educational establishment. If I have not covered the matter comprehensively, I apologise.
I should like to touch on the University Air Squadrons. The House will be aware that for many years the Royal Air Force has had these squadrons established in most of the larger universities. Their purpose is basically to link the Royal Air Force with the university world and at the same time to give as many undergraduates as possible an opportunity to fly with the R.A.F., with the obvious hope that some of them will ultimately want to come into the Service.
In practice, over the years, we have been lucky enough to have a steady flow of high quality entrants from the air squadrons, and many of them have subsequently made their mark in the Service. As we have repeatedly made clear, the Royal Air Force has a growing need for good quality graduates in all its branches and the importance of the University Air Squadrons remains undiminished.
Nevertheless, as part of the general search for economy in our defence effort, we have thought it right to look at the University Air Squadrons to see whether they can be made even more cost-effective. As a result of very careful examination, we have come to the conclusion that we could and should make a number of changes which will have the effect of saving ultimately about £400,000 a year. The main ones are,

first, to restrict the initial period of flying membership to two years, with only a small proportion being allowed to stay on for a third year. This will allow us to make some reductions in the establishments of the squadrons. As part of this process, we have amalgamated the Edinburgh and St. Andrews University Air Squadrons, and the Hull and Leeds Squadrons, to form two large squadrons. Second, we are making some changes in the flying syllabus, thus enabling us to reduce the number of flying hours per member without, however, affecting the overall value of the training. Finally, since we hope that membership of the squadrons will become even keener, we are abolishing the entitlement to pay and allowances. Members will continue, however, to be eligible for an annual bounty and, of course, to receive out-of-pocket expenses.
These changes do not in any way reflect any slackening of our interest in the squadrons or the universities. As I have said, and as the House already knows from other statements, our need for graduates is going up, and the University Air Squadrons have therefore an increasingly important part to play.
I turn from undergraduates to other young people. Hon. Members will recall that the former Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force referred in his speech last year to the work of the Committee, set up under Air Marshal Sir Douglas Morris, to review the whole organisation, administration and training of the Air Training Corps. It made a searching examination of all aspects of the A.T.C. with the object of fitting it to meet the needs of the 1970s. It made some 30 recommendations, of which perhaps the most important was a proposal that the corps should be reorganised on a regional basis, with a regional commandant and regional headquarters in each region, similar to the organisation which already exists in Scotland. The Committee's conclusions were discussed fully with the representatives of the Air Training Corps itself, and following that we started to implement the various recommendations. I am glad to say that we have made very substantial progress and already the results are beginning to show themselves in the corps. In the past 12 months, the cadet strength has risen from 28,000 to


just over 31,000, and there is every indication that this trend will continue.
As I have said, the core of the Morris Committee's most valuable report was the proposal to reorganise the A.T.C. on a regional basis, and the successful implementation of many of its other recommendations depends basically upon this particular piece of reorganisation. All the new regional commandants are already in post and the organisation is expected to be fully operational by the middle of April.
Other recommendations which have already been implemented include a reduction in the minimum age limit for cadets, improvements in the scales of accommodation, the introduction of new training syllabi and the introduction of an increased training and administrative grant.
Naturally, we are anxious to combine these improvements with a reasonable degree of stability, and therefore some of the recommendations—for example, the reduction in the upper age limit for officers—will be implemented only very gradually, as and when officers come to the end of their normal periods of service.
I make no excuse for emphasising once again the importance which the regular Air Force attaches to the well-being of the Air Training Corps. Many hundreds of ex-A.T.C. boys join the Royal Air Force each year and provide an extremely valuable entry of the high quality which we shall continue to need for as long as we can foresee. At the same time, the corps is providing a youth training service, with a measure of discipline which is increasingly valuable. Like the other cadet forces, the A.T.C. is basically run by voluntary, unpaid effort and I am sure that the House would wish to join me in thanking all those who carry out this sterling work on our behalf.
My treatment this evening has inevitably been selective, but from it hon. Members will, I hope, have realised the tremendous efforts which the Royal Air Force has made and is making to ensure that its record in its next half century will justify the same pride as does that of its first 50 years. Those efforts deserve to succeed. I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House will

be proud to play whatever part they can in ensuring that success.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. F. V. Corfield: I suppose that after the Minister's speech I ought to be feeling an outsize inferiority complex, being a mere product of the Royal Military Academy, but, looking at the benches opposite, I do not.
I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends would wish wholeheartedly to be associated with the Minister's confidence that the Royal Air Force can be completely relied on in the next 50 years to carry out its duties with the same loyalty, gallantry, and efficiency that it has in the past. Indeed, it is due to these virtues in all our Services that we are here today. It is also due to them perhaps that we have the less exciting duty year after year of listening to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes).
When the Secretary of State for Defence wound up the debate on the Defence White Paper on 5th March he concluded with the warning that
… once we cut defence expenditure to the extent where our security is imperilled, we have no houses, we have no hospitals, we have no schools. We have a heap of cinders." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1969; Vol. 779, c. 551.]
Those are dramatic words, but they express a sentiment which I think will be echoed by everyone on my side of the House, and they are words which identify the question that is, and must be, central to the issues that we discuss in these annual debates on the Defence White Paper and the Service Estimates.
That question is quite simply this: what is the minimum level of our Armed Forces at which it can reasonably be said that our security is not imperilled? That, after all, is what these annual debates are essentially about, although, of course, it is the duty of the Government to achieve that level with the maximum economy, just as it is the duty of the Opposition to probe and question their account of their stewardship. But if a reduction in defence expenditure imperils our security there can be no economy, for if, in the words of the Secretary of State, the result is a pile of cinders, then defence expenditure is a defenceless extravagance.


This is the crux of the matter. Is the level at which our Armed Forces are currently maintained, or planned for the immediate future, above the threshold below which, as the Secretary of State put it, our security is imperilled? The evidence that it is is sadly lacking. The arguments which the Government have employed cast doubt rather than give reassurance, and increase rather than allay anxiety.
What is abundantly clear is that the Government have not even set out to determine the minimum level of defence consistent with reasonable security, and then to provide the requisite forces as efficiently and as economically as possible. All the evidence of successive White Papers, of successive pronouncements by Ministers, and in particular by the Secretary of State for Defence as he abandons one final curtailment after another, is that they have done precisely the opposite. Setting this wholly arbitrary reduction in costs, they have proceeded to argue that the forces which that enables them to supply must necessarily be adequate for our security. If that were so, it would be a coincidence far too unlikely to be accepted by any reasonable person in the absence of evidence that is irrefutable, and argument that is convincing, and neither of these is noticeable in the Government's case so far.
But there are other causes of anxiety. As the Secretary of State himself has said, "We must avoid isolating the military problem from the political context in which it is presented in real life". That is precisely what the Government are doing. That N.A.T.O. should be able to prolong the conventional phase of military aggression in Europe sufficiently to allow time for last-minute diplomatic effort to avoid a nuclear holocaust is clearly a worthy objective, but at a time when N.A.T.O. has been abandoned by France and when the United States is heavily committed elsewhere, on what ground does the Secretary of State believe that that objective is currently obtainable?
Faced with the ever-increasing potential of the Warsaw Pact Powers—which, we are told in the Defence White Paper, have over 1 million men in air forces and strategic rocket forces—it is difficult to accept that the marginal extra contribution

which Britain is making to N.A.T.O. could lengthen a conventional struggle sufficiently, by days rather than hours, to mount such a diplomatic offensive which, in the nature of the situation, would have to be built on the ashes of diplomatic failure.
Whatever may be the changes in military thinking, no responsible body of opinion denies, or is likely to deny, the supreme importance of command of the air in time of war. It is worth reminding ourselves from time to time that in none of the operations in which British and American forces have been engaged since the last war has command of the air ever been in doubt. It was the key to the six-day war in the Middle East. It would be a brave man indeed who would speculate on the outcome of any of those operations, let alone on their cost, had that not been the case.
In the European theatre it is both right and necessary to look to N.A.T.O. rather than to the British contribution alone. I do not think that anyone with an appreciation of the enormous cost of modern defences would contemplate an effective all-round defence of Britain alone. Here at least we can not only agree with but applaud the Government in expressing their determination to strengthen the Alliance.
However, it is not particularly reassuring to learn from the Military Balance, 1968–69, published by the Institute of Strategic Studies, that the Warsaw Pact countries probably have more than twice as many tactical aircraft in operational service as N.A.T.O. The figures given are 8,130 on the one hand and 3,750 on the other. A recent report of the United States Senate Preparedness Investigating Sub-Committee confirms that superiority, although the Sub-Committee believes that N.A.T.O. probably has a qualitative advantage over the Warsaw Pact countries in aircraft primarily designed for the strike rôle; or, as the Americans put it, aircraft having as their primary mission
… the air to ground delivery of ordnance".

Mr. Emrys Hughes: rose—

Mr. Corfield: No. I will not give way.
That Sub-Committee appears to have little doubt that, in terms of the number


of "interceptors and air-superiority aircraft", the latter have a "substantial majority". Ominously the report adds:
If the airspace is not controlled, the tactical aircraft designed for air to ground rôles will be relatively ineffective.
Only the Phantom is considered to equal, though not to be superior to, the MIG21 in air combat, and this Sub-Committee believes that the Soviet Union has already flown a number of aircraft more advanced in type than the MIG21.
Three fundamental requirements seem to follow from this state of affairs. First, the R.A.F.'s imperative need for a genuine all-weather multi-rôle aircraft as opposed to a short-range day strike aircraft; in short a multi-rôle combat aircraft of the right specification. That includes terrain-bombing capabilities such as were disastrously thrown away with the TSR2. Secondly, it implies the continuing need for research so that the quality of the equipment in the R.A.F. and other N.A.T.O. air forces keeps pace with Soviet advances and ensures a reasonable chance of survival in time of war. Thirdly, and perhaps most important, is the overriding need for continued United States commitment in Europe.
In none of these spheres can the Defence White Paper, the Estimates or the speeches and actions of Ministers be regarded as reassuring. I do not doubt that the concept of co-operation with our European allies in the manufacture of military aircraft is sound. It has many potential advantages which I need not recapitulate, but we should not underestimate the difficulties and dangers; and there certainly are difficulties.
The West Germans, occupying as they do the potential battlefield, can hardly be expected fully to share the Secretary of State's enthusiasm for flexible and graduated response as opposed to a continued and overt willingness on the part of N.A.T.O. to go nuclear immediately since they believe it is on that that their security depends.
Prolongation of conventional war is therefore less attractive to them than it may be to us, but it is an objective to which the Secretary of State is committed, and we really cannot afford another of these abrupt changes in strategy that have so disrupted the equipment of the R.A.F. and placed such a strain on the morale of

officers and men. This requirement, therefore, is an essential corollary to the Secretary of State's own strategy; it is not one that existing types, lacking all-weather equipment seem capable of satisfactorily fulfilling while at the same time maintaining superiority in the air.
There is also the further difference of outlook between Britain and West Germany that, whereas the West Germans are interested in their own theatre only, Britain's geographical position and our dependence on seaborne communications has committed us, in my view quite rightly, not merely to the central European front but to the flanks of N.A.T.O. as well. In these circumstances, a joint Anglo-German project inevitably will be something of a compromise. I hope that the Minister in replying to the debate will assure the House that in no circumstances at all will the R.A.F. be deprived of the aircraft that the strategy to which it is to be committed by the Government demands.
I hope that it will be possible to embark on a joint co-operative venture but I trust that for once there will be a firm determination on the part of the Government to retain if need be our own capability to meet our own requirements. For far too long talk of abandoning that capability has passed to foreign Governments, notably the French—the ability to veto our requirements and inhibit our technological advance.
The outcome of the Anglo-French variable geometry project, so long regarded by the Secretary of State as the vital linchpin of the R.A.F.'s weaponry only to be dismissed as of minor importance when the French withdrew is not a happy augury; nor are the reports that the French are now exerting pressure on West Germany to abandon the M.R.C.A. and take the Mirage 3G instead. Again, I hope the Minister will be able to assure the House that if this R.A.F. requirement cannot be provided by co-operation it will be provided by Britain. In my view it is absolutely vital to the country and the British aircraft industry that we should neither lose our capability in military aircraft design and construction, nor opt out of technological advance and the employment and other things that such projects involve.
I have expressed doubt as to the practicability of the Secretary of State's strategy of flexible and graduated response, but I doubt whether in the long term even the trip-wire philosophy can be effectively operated without an aircraft of this kind. East European defences will become increasingly elaborate and their penetration will require increasingly sophisticated aircraft. I have mentioned the probability that the Russians are already flying more advanced aircraft than the Mig 21. Perhaps most important of all, we must recall that Phantoms need a great deal of concrete.
Denied bases in France, forward bases in Germany and the Low Countries will become increasingly vulnerable to preemptive attack and our aircraft may have to operate from bases as far afield as the United States, thereby greatly reducing their operational efficiency. In the ground attack-reconnaissance rôle, as we know, the Harrier very largely overcomes this problem but there are at present two limitations to its flexible and most effective employment. First, there is the question of numbers. We welcome the increase from last year to a total order of 90 but it still seems dangerously low. Nevertheless, we have been encouraged to hear that the Government at least have not a closed mind as to the possibility of further orders for Harriers primarily adapted for the maritime rôle now that the Pegasus engine can be upgraded, with a higher thrust.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the hon. Member elucidate his remark about operating from bases in the United States?

Mr. Corfield: I am sorry if I said bases in the United States; I meant in the United Kingdom.
I hope that the Government will not delay in coming to a conclusion on this matter. There cannot be any doubt that a larger order would have a very salutary effect on the cost per aircraft and would give the firm concerned the ability to meet export orders without undue delay and at the same time without depriving the R.A.F. of its most urgent requirements. This I have no doubt would greatly increase the attractiveness of this aircraft for export sales.
The second limitation to the full use of the Harrier seems to arise from our inability to relate the potential flexibility

of this aircraft to equal flexibility in providing the ground services. When are the Government to turn their attention to the urgent need for a V.T.O.L., or short take-off and landing transport aircraft able to deliver personnel, weapons and supplies to keep the Harrier in action in frontline areas, independent of static and highly vulnerable base facilities? Is this not a project in which we could usefully renew our collaboration with West Germany either in the development of a completely new project or in the development of the Rolls-Royce powered Dornier DO31?
International co-operation, particularly in military projects, is very largely based on mutual trust and confidence between the partners, but far from creating that mutual trust and confidence the Government have done much to undermine it. Whatever the merits of decisions on E.L.D.O. or the airbus, there cannot be any doubt that the way in which the Government have presented their case to their partners has been deeply resented and has left in their minds nagging doubts about our reliability as partners. We cannot afford the dual disaster of exclusion from European cooperation and a Government policy which denies to our own aircraft industry the opportunity to supply our own requirements by ourselves.

Mr. John Morris: The hon. Member has thrown some cold water on the possibility of getting some understanding on the M.R.C.A. and has now attacked the Government on a number of scores. He is giving only one side of the picture. Perhaps he forgets the progress which has been made in the development of the Jaguar and also the collaboration which we have with France on the three helicopters. It would be of assistance to the House if the hon. Member gave the whole picture, not one side.

Mr. Corfield: It is not my job to defend the Government. It is my job to probe. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to answer my anxieties when he winds up the debate. Of course I am aware that the Jaguar was a very successful co-operative effort, but it does not follow that we can make the same success with the multi-rôle combat aircraft in which we are not in co-operation with France.


I find Chapter 6 of the Defence White Paper a little like the curate's egg, good in parts but begging some of the more important questions. With the exception of the first paragraph, it is not what the chapter contains which causes me concern but that which is omitted or, to be more accurate, what is mentioned, so to speak in passing, with a positively tantalising lack of detail. I take issue with the first paragraph. In the light of the enormous pace and, indeed, the cost of technological advance a confession that no
dramatic changes in the types and characteristics of our future weapons
is foreseen and that
The total expenditure on research and development
is to fall, inevitably gives rise to some suspicion.
For example, I note a cutting from The Guardian announcing the American invention of something called the subsonic cruise armed decoy, which has one of these revolting shorthand names "SCAD", which, according to The Guardian, is revolutionising the whole concept of the bomber. The Americans, therefore, are turning back their attention to bombers rather than strike aircraft.
Is that included in the word "dramatic"—perhaps it is all a matter of the interpretation of that word—or is it something we have not heard about? It certainly seems to be a considerable advance on Martel and we should like to hear more about it.
I should like to think that reductions in the cost of R and D reflect, not so much a reduction in effort, as a more sensible accounting system. I greatly welcome the recognition in paragraphs 7 and 12 of the importance of civilian spin-off engendered by defence research and of the importance of identifying
results that can be used for the benefit of the civil economy".
There is no doubt whatever that the spin-off of defence research continues to be very substantial.
The same applies to very advanced civil projects such as Concorde. The Daily Mail is much to be congratulated on producing a very good article on 27th

February listing and describing some of the remarkable and immensely beneficial adaptations of Concorde development techniques in spheres of ordinary everyday civilian usage, ranging indeed, as was pointed out in the article—it was by no means complete—from better life-saving equipment for premature babies to what was described as perfect plumbing. These things should be more widely known. I hope that the Government will ensure that information about these techniques developed as by-products of the defence research programme are not confined merely to firms which are capable of applying them to some civilian production. There are bound to be some security problems, but I hope that as far as security permits the Government will try to make information available to the House and to the public on it.
I hope that they will go further and at least try to put a monetary value on some of these technological by-products and persuade the Treasury to allow an appropriate credit to the defence budget. There appears to be no allowance of any sort for this item under Subhead Z of the Central Vote, headed "Appropriations in Aid", nor does there appear to be very much credit for overseas sales of R.A.F. equipment. The Minister pointed out that apparently the defence budget does not get credited with what the Services have done in the meteorological field for other people.
Turning to the question of R.A.F. sales, an article in The Times on 6th February estimated that exports of this type of equipment probably stood at about £20 million for 1968, with prospects of very substantial increases in the current year. We know, for example, that there have been sales of Lightnings to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and of Canberras to Peru. There have certainly been many inquiries for Hunters, though I do not know whether it will be possible to fulfil any orders. Presumably some part of the proceeds finds its way back to the Exchequer, either in the form of levies on new aircraft or cash for second-hand R.A.F. aircraft which are re-purchased by manufacturers for modernisation and re-equipment for sale abroad. The entry under subhead Z5, which is only £7½ million and which covers all disposals of surplus defence equipment, certainly does not seem adequate to cover aircraft


sales of this sort of magnitude. I therefore hope that the Minister will tell us precisely how such items are accounted for because it seems right that they should go to the credit of the defence budget and that we should not go on carrying items in the defence budget without any recognition of their value to the civilian economy.
Perhaps the Minister will give us up-to-date information about the proposal to sell Hunters and Harriers to Malaysia. Is it true, for example, as has been announced in the Press, that the deal depends upon our agreeing to station aircraft on Labuan Island, at least till 1971? If it is, it would, surely, be sensible to accede to that request, bearing in mind not only the strategic value of forces in that part of the world but the value to this country in supplying the initial needs of an air force which is likely to return to the same source for replacements in the future?
While on the subject of military exports, I return for a moment to a subject which I raised last year. Disastrous as was the replacement of the TSR2 by the subsequently cancelled F111, the Government at least, in negotiating the latter contract, also negotiated an offset agreement which has been of considerable value to this country. May we be told whether in the case of other purchases which we make from the United States a similar agreement applies or is being negotiated?
I was a little disturbed to read in an influential and normally reliable source of aero-space news, Aviation Week, of 21st October, the following headline,
U.K. 10-year Defense outlay in U.S. may hit 2·5 billion dollars".
The article went on:
Britain is expected to spend about 2·5 billion dollars on major U.S. defence equipment in the 10 years to 1977, according to Raymond S. Brown, defense sales head of the United Kingdom's Ministry of Defense. 'And this is without taking into account purchases of standard equipment of about 40 million dollars a year', he said. 'We shall probably spend a considerable sum in addition for civil aircraft, engines and equipment'.
According to Brown, 13 per cent. of Britain's annual defense equipment purchases are made from the U.S., or 230 million dollars per year of a 1·5 billion dollar budget.
A little later in the article, Mr. Brown is reported to have referred to United

States purchases of United Kingdom-manufactured defence equipment and indicated that it would be less than one-tenth of 1 per cent. of United States defence purchases, or about 200 million dollars through the 12 years of the 1966–67 offset agreement between the two Governments.
Is this really the way to do business with the United States? The first essential is to try to make clear that, although we are prepared to put these valuable orders in the way of United States manufacturers, we can do so only on the basis of an equivalent opportunity for British manufacturers of defence equipment in the United States market. I hope that the Minister will look into that and reassure us that the offset factor is not being ignored. After all, 2·5 billion dollars over ten years, even by American standards, is a fairly valuable order.

Mr. Robert Howarth: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the United States Marine Corps' interest in the Harrier, which, though it went out at one stage, has now reappeared in a modest way and, we hope, will go ahead.

Mr. Corfield: I deliberately left that out because it was indicated to me that too much publicity might be embarrassing for the deal. I fear that that account in Aviation Week to which I have referred gives an impression that such cards as we have are not being played with either skill or determination, and this impression, I am sorry to say, is confirmed by some of the contacts which I have had with Americans who have been involved in these matters. Too often, the reaction of Americans is surprise at our readiness to agree to American terms, even on occasion failing to win a concession which the Americans came to the negotiating table ready to make.
I hope that we shall be able to renegotiate an offset agreement and that, if necessary, in so doing, we shall bargain toughly, as toughly as the Americans expect us to do.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. However, speaking with some small experience of the American aircraft industry, I am sure that he recognises that the crucial need is to have the equipment which they want. If we go about cancelling our


advanced projects, then, automatically, we shall have nothing to offer competitively with the Americans.

Mr. Corfield: My hon. Friend is right. On the other hand, in the electronic sphere we have a good deal they do want, which is more competitive with their own product. The difficulty is that there is a very strong tariff advantage for the United States-produced product. We need some sort of offset agreement, under which Britain can get over the tariff barrier.
I return to the question of research, particularly procurement. There is here an immensely difficult and inevitable conflict. On the one hand, the Treasury has this fiduciary position vis-à-vis public money, and that engenders caution at the outset, check and counter-check throughout production and development and, in consequence, delay. On the other hand, there is a military or, in the case of commercial aircraft, a commercial and industrial need for quick decisions and continuity. Government, and I make no distinction between parties, has yet to find the answer.
The Government are right to place greater emphasis on the detailed definition of a project before commitment and, where possible, avoiding over-elaboration of operational requirements. If, as I suspect, the corollary to this is that by and large a new aircraft and its equipment would be produced within the knowledge of the art, instead of allowing each new aircraft to develop into a major research operation of its own, as has happened in the past, it follows that it will fall more and more to the research budget to ensure that the knowledge of the art is progressively widened. In other words, the further corollary is that the research budget will require to be increased. That seems to be the inevitable quid pro quo for what should be very much more economic development and production of the operational aircraft.
That is one of the reasons why I distrust the first paragraph of Chapter 6. In my search for ideas as to how we can resolve this conflict between Government as trustee and Government as customer, I have also been attracted by the concept of the project team and project controller

which is borrowed from America. I would ask the Government to try to arrange for information, either in the form of a White Paper or of reports on specific projects, to be deposited in the Library or for the House to be given details of these developments and Government assessments of their efficacy from time to time. We have had a lot of valuable information on this subject disclosed to the Select Committee on Technology.
It is not always in a readily assessable form, and certainly not in a form easy for reference purposes. There is no arrangement whereby progress reports can bring us up to date. There are many details that would be of great interest to a number of hon. Members. For example, from what source will these project officers be recruited? Will they be exclusively civil servants or will the Government experiment by securing secondment from industry or the universities, as is done extensively in America?
Again, will the project officers devise their own monitoring machinery, or will this be laid down by the Government? It would be unfair to expect the hon. Gentleman to answer such questions, but I hope that I have said enough to indicate what I have in mind, and also that he will agree that something on these lines would constitute a useful stimulus to discussion and ideas on what is a difficult problem. It probably changes in character from time to time, and from project to project, but it is always with us. It is one on which more knowledge, more discussion would be valuable.
I conclude with the wider issue. It is probably true that the two sides of the House are in broad agreement on the central facts but in fundamental disagreement on the conclusions to be drawn from them. I think it generally agreed that probably the most powerful deterrent to Russian aggression in Europe is likely to be the certain knowledge that the immediate consequence will be war with the United States.
If that be so, as I believe it is, then provided the United States retains a substantial deployment of military force in Europe, this threat probably remains amongst those which are least likely to develop. It follows, therefore, that, where there can be a British military presence outside Europe which strengthens the


alliance between Britain and America, and therefore the American commitment to Europe, such a presence is every bit as much in the interests of N.A.T.O. as an equivalent British military effort in Europe itself.
Where British forces continue to be welcome, as in the Gulf, Malaysia and Singapore, it is their presence which, in my opinion, constitutes a real guarantee to any potential aggressor that they can and will be reinforced. That really is the deterrent. It is of an entirely different order to any statement of intent to come to the support of local forces if the need should arise.
Moreover, the political context in which the military problem has to be presented in real life is, as the Secretary of State said, one in which the most immediate threats to peace are outside N.A.T.O. and outside Europe. I refer, of course, to the Middle East and the Far East. The Secretary of State dismisses the objectives of Russian naval presence in the Indian Ocean, the Mediterranean and probably by now in the South Atlantic as merely political. What does he mean by "political" in this sense? I suggest that we can only judge by looking at the actions of the Russians themselves.
These actions are an increasing political and economic influence, highly detrimental in many cases to Western trade in the Middle East, Africa and many parts of Asia; they are the build up of the forces, particularly air forces, in these countries with Russian arms, Russian military instructors and sometimes Russian pilots; they are the creation of tensions which, certainly in the Middle East, could at any time erupt into major military action with all the possibilities of escalation.
Why does the right hon. Gentleman believe that our security is in no way imperilled by inability to counter these so-called political ramifications of military force? What reference to that vital question has the proportion of gross national product devoted to defence by other N.A.T.O. Governments? What justification has Europe, with its vast industrial wealth and population larger than that of the Soviet Union and the United States, for relying so heavily on the latter?
It is in these non-N.A.T.O. areas that the Government have left us so critically weak, particularly in the numbers of maritime aircraft. We welcome the possibility of maritime carriers but are 38 Nimrods, for example, adequate replacement for seven squadrons of Shackletons at a period in our history when we are more, rather than less, dependent on seaborne trade than ever before? Can the Royal Air Force, whose front line combat strength will, according to the estimate by the Air League, be under 500 aircraft by 1975, fail to cause anxiety? Where are the resources of men and material essential to the concept of flexible and graduated response?
I give place to no one in my admiration for the Forces. Neither their integrity nor their loyalty is for one moment in doubt. But the Government and the Defence Secretary in particular delude themselves if they mistake that loyalty to Crown and country for confidence in themselves.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: On a point of order. May I ask your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker? At what point will it be proper for me to move the Amendment in my name?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Mr. Speaker indicated earlier in the debate that the Amendment had not been selected. If the hon. Gentleman succeeds in catching the eye of the Chair he may move the Amendment then.

Mr. Jenkins: I am grateful.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. John Ellis: The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) spoke for a long time but did not mention the aspect of the Estimates about which I wish to make a few remarks—the Meteorological Office.
In the Session 1966–67 we had a Special Report from the Estimates Committee, which did a very valiant job of looking into the amount of money spent on the Meteorological Office and how we are served by it. I do not disagree with the Committee's findings in general. I shall have some critical remarks to make later, but in the Meteorological Office we


have a service costing less than £10 million a year while individual types of aircraft cost much more than that sum. In addition to serving aviation, it makes a great contribution to many facets of our national life, and overall, having regard to the difficulty of weather forecasting, it does a reasonable job.
The Select Committee said:
In the immediate future important decisions will have to be made to determine to which particular research projects priority should be given with the resources available. A prime consideration in the making of such decisions should be an assessment of the amount of likely economic value to the country as a whole of progress in any particular field of meteorological research.
This seemed to me to be common sense, because one does not study meteorology always as a pure science but because, in its day-to-day application specific and accurate forecasts are of enormous use to human beings, and we have still barely realised the potential of the forecasts to save money.
Therefore, I was very disappointed when we had the Departmental observation on the recommendation, which flew directly in the face of it. It said:
It is accepted that the overall programme of research projects should pay attention to its long-term economic value to the country as a whole. The Meteorological Office must however undertake a broad based programme of fundamental research in order to fulfil its functions of advancing the science of meteorology. This will involve some work which does not offer prospects of immediate or identifiable economic gain.
This does slightly less than justice to what the Committee said, which was that more attention should be given to this aspect of development.
Another recommendation of the Committee was:
In order to try and ensure that the Meteorological Office retains a higher proportion of trained staff in the scientific assistant grade, the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence should carry out a review of the Abnormal Hours Allowance payable to those in the grade employed on roster work.
I suppose that I should declare some interest, because for 15 years I was in that grade. The people in it do the observations hour after hour. They are at work for 24 hours on the roster, and go to work at Christmas and on Sundays, providing all the basic information on

the weather. Very often the decisions taken on visibility determine whether or not aircraft fly. It is therefore important that there should be experienced staff. This cadre has always lacked experienced observers and experienced assistants because the rates of pay have been abnormally low.
I was disappointed to find in the Departmental observation a proposal to review the Committee's recommendations on the wastage of assistant scientific officers. This is not good enough. These are the men who man the ocean weather ships. I have never served on an ocean weather ship and I think that I should have refused that duty. I have seen Press reports about a great liner suffering damage when I have known that an ocean weather ship has been just south of Iceland in the path of the North Atlantic gales, where it was laying to in order to take observations. The laconic message would come over the teleprinter: "Waves 60 feet from top to bottom"—and the ship would be hove to—"Am unable to maintain position; will steam a grid course". This meant that the conditions were so bad that the ship could no longer hold its position. This is the kind of work that is done by these men. Some are on remote airfields miles from anywhere. I hope that the Department will get on with considering this problem.
I wish to touch on one other matter which was part of my intervention. The Meteorological Office has been closely identified with the needs of the Services and most of its budget is used to this end. One can understand why it is thought necessary to have a staff of forecasters and assistants at a fighter station which may have 40 aircraft airborne, costing millions of pounds. A very good service is given. I often wonder why this kind of service cannot be made available for civilian application, although there are some local weather centres in major towns. Building sites have been mentioned, but there are also enormous potential savings in agriculture. Many millions of pounds have been saved for a minimal outlay. We should consider setting up specialist offices on the sites of important building projects, with, say, a team of six assistants and forecasters to provide detailed information. This has been neglected in the past, and I hope


much more will be done on this in the future.
The Select Committee touched on the amount of money which will be spent on the new computer. The Director-General, in the foreword to the Annual Report of the Meteorological Office for 1965, said this:
High among the more important events of the year were the commissioning in July of the English Electric-Leo-Marconi KDF9 computer, and the introduction of routine numerical forecasts on 2 November.
He goes on to say:
These computered forecasts are already as good as those produced by an experienced forecaster and will almost certainly form the basis of operational forecasting in the near future.
During the time when the Select Committee sat, the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) inquired of the Director-General about feasibility studies when the computer was installed.
He asked him:
Have you been able to refer back to those studies to satisfy yourself as to how accurate they have proved to be in the event?
He got a very different answer:
… I think we have been overtaken by events and the next computer will have to be much bigger.
In other words, things were not quite as rosy. The hon. Gentleman went on to ask if a howler had been committed when the computer was bought. The reply came:
… It would have been better if it had been bigger and more powerful, but really, without personally going through all those exercises and being wise after the event, I would hesitate to express an opinion … of these remarks.
But with respect, I would say that an opinion had been expressed in 1965. That was very different later.
I want to issue a warning to my hon. Friend. If there are those who advance the theory that with a bigger computer it will be possible to forecast where the last raindrop will fall, I think that the events of 1965 will be repeated with the new computer. That is not to say, however that it should not be purchased, but some assessment should be made.
In Questions, I have asked about the results of the computer. So far, I have received only flimsy replies. Quite an amount of money has been spent here, yet

we are told that it is too early to say that the computer has affected the correctness of forecasts, and so on. That is not good enough. We should have more details from the Meteorological Office.
I turn now to the correctness of forecasts, and here I intend to be somewhat critical. In 1967, I asked a Question about the accuracy of forecasts. The Answer that I was given was that for forecasts issued at 6 o'clock in the evening for the evening of the next day, the general accuracy varied between different years but was generally about 77 per cent. correct. For the forecasts issued at 8 o'clock in the morning for the next day, which is the one to which many people listen, I was told that the remarkable figures of between 83 per cent. in 1963–64 and 85 per cent. in 1966–67 were deemed correct.
I asked what was meant by "correct" and how the assessment was made. The Meteorological Office was good enough to supply me with the criteria for checking. It is one of the most remarkable documents that I have ever seen. Here is a scientific service using a huge computer and employing scientists and others doing observations with remarkable accuracy and care. The object of the exercise is to prepare forecasts, and the proud claim is made that 85 per cent. of them are correct.
The document reads:
A few rules are given below on the standards of marking, but they do not and cannot cover every possible wording or situation. In most cases the checker will have to exercise his discretion. When in doubt he should make whatever assessment he feels is most appropriate, without attempting any elaborate reasoning—remembering, that he is trying to arrive at a layman's estimate which is really a closely reasoned one.
For a scientific discipline, I would have thought that a more scientific approach to the accuracy or otherwise of forecasts was called for.
The list of marking standards giving the various elements is very poor. It does not mention fog and how accuracy should be judged in any way. One of the items is headed "Showers and thunderstorms", and it is remarkable. It says:
Such transient phenomena present the most difficult problems of checking. If the forecast refers to 'a risk of', 'scattered', 'in a few places' or some such phrase, it is a good forecast even if no showers occur. But it is 'bad' if showers etc. are frequent (say more


than two moderate showers in the day) or very prolonged. (Note that to the public a fall exceeding about an hour is not a shower, so that any forecast of showers is bad if such long falls occur.) If the forecast is for widespread showers, or even 'showers in many places' it should be treated as bad if none occurs.
I think that was self-evident. I make a serious point. I have pursued this question with my right hon. Friend, suggesting, in the kindest possible way, that we should give more thought to it. So far I have had a negative response. I think that we should take as much care in checking to see how our accuracy is increasing as we do elsewhere in scientific disciplines.
I jotted down what I thought was a reasonable forecast, and I guarantee that I will get 100 per cent. marks for being correct. This is how it goes: "Most areas will be cloudy with occasional outbreaks of slight to moderate rain. At times outbreaks may be heavy locally. Winds westerly, moderate or fresh, rising to gale force in exposed places. Winds will be light and variable in sheltered places where frost may occur. Temperatures are expected to be variable but to generally be below average for the time of year. Further outlook unsettled."
All that terminology is in use in forecasting today. What does it mean? "Most areas will be cloudy with occasional outbreaks of slight to moderate rain." In the areas where it is not cloudy there could be sunshine, so I cover for sunshine and slight to moderate rain.
"At times outbreaks may be heavy locally." That throws in heavy rain as well.
"Winds westerly …" This is always a good one. "Westerly" includes a 180 degree cycle, so one has only to be right within half the range, which is good going. "… moderate or fresh, rising to gale force in exposed places." The other day a tile blew off my house. I could not be faulted on that, because if the wind blew a tile off the roof of my house, it must be in an exposed place. "Winds will be light and variable in sheltered places where frost may occur."
Another point is that they are talking about what is average all the time: "Temperatures are expected to be variable but expected to generally be below average for this time of year". There is no criterion here. These are general

terms which vary widely from year to year. If one asks the man in the street, he will say, nine times out of ten, that it is cold for this time of year.
I will close on this point. Rarely do we have an opportunity to discuss something so intimate to most people's lives as the weather. It is a subject of constant concern. Therefore, I hope that the House will be patient with me.
I looked at the 30-day forecast in The Times for this Monday. I hope that no one will think that I am exaggerating. This is the 30-day forecast that was issued:
The Meteorological Office issued on Saturday the following forecast for the next 30 days. During the next few days it will probably remain cold, with occasional rain or snow in northern districts.
At the time that was written snow was covering some of the North of England and there was rain in the South, so the odds were that it would occur during the next few days.
Farther south, milder and unsettled weather, with heavy rain in places, is likely.
I would say also occurring.
Later marked changes in weather are probable"—
that is on the basis that it cannot go on raining and snowing all the time, so they were on a good thing—
with one or two fine, anticyclonic spells in all areas …
We usually find that such spells are to do with ridges of high pressure, so if we get a bit of sunshine during the next 30 days on one or two occasions they are on a good bet there.
Night frost is expected from time to time everywhere and it will probably occur more often than usual in Scotland, especially in the West.
Scotland is in the North, and it follows that it is more likely, the further North one goes, the more frost will be found.
Some further snow is expected in northern districts"—
and again we note—
Monthly mean temperatures are expected to be below average in most places, but near average in South-East England and South Wales, and much below average in Eastern Scotland, North-East and East England. Rainfall during the period is expected to range from average in South and South-East England and East Anglia to below average in Scotland.
No ordinary man knows what these averages are, because in one month one can,


for instance, get three months' rainfall, and in another month get hardly any. I hope that the Meteorological Office will reconsider its attitude to 30-day forecasts.
I hope that the Minister has taken note of what I have said. I think that we could do with a good deal more information. I spent many years in this service, and worked with good forecasters. Forecasting is a difficult job. We have a fine Meteorological Service, but I think that it should inquire more fully into what has happened in the past, because in that way better scientific estimates can be made for the future.

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that we have had three speeches in aproximately the first two hours of this debate. I am almost inclined to say that, weather permitting, I hope to call everybody who wishes to speak. Reasonably brief speeches however will help.

9.32 p.m.

Wing-Commander Sir Eric Bullus: I shall not attempt to follow the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) into the vagaries of the weather. During my service with the Royal Air Force I had a great regard for the weather man. He was not always right, but on the other hand he was not always wrong.
I think that courtesy demands that I should congratulate the Minister of Defence for Equipment on what I think are his first Estimates, but having said that, I must add that I am rather sad that this is the first time during my service in the Royal Air Force, and during my long service in this House, that the Air Estimates have been introduced by someone who is not a Minister for the Royal Air Force.
I have taken part in Air Estimates debate for 20 years. They have always been thoughtful and useful debates, and it is interesting to read the reports of some of the earlier discussions. But it is rather different today, and I think it is rather sad that, instead of noting the increasing power and growth of the Royal Air Force, we are witnessing a gradual, almost perceptible, run-down.
I shall perhaps be told that the morale of the Royal Air Force is high. My reply is that it could, and should, be higher. Whereas in past years we have discussed new British aircraft and enthusiastically

anticipated new British types which would soon be coming into service, today we have no major military aircraft on the drawing board, and this in a country which can match anything in the world.
All that might be justified, and even acceptable, if we were moving into an era of peace, looking forward to sustained peace when war shall be no more, but would anyone say that war is less likely today than at any time since the end of the last war? While dangers remain we have a vital responsibility to see that our defences are strong, and that while we work for peace we are still prepared in defence.
Is this really the time for reducing our expenditure on defence? The Secretary of State has almost gleefully told us that the Estimates this year are considerably down on last year. The Minister of Defence said that the Estimates are up slightly. Is this in real terms? Real defence must always be expensive, and real defence must always be a prime priority for a nation such as ours.
In this uncertain and unstable position, can one wonder at the general uneasiness and the disappointing recruiting figures? During the years I have always maintained that we shall require manned aircraft and trained pilots for years to come, but the administration of our Defence Forces today causes the would-be recruit to think very seriously about the future.
Is everything possible being done to attract the best of our youth to enter the R.A.F.? Every effort should be bent to this end. I commend the Minister's statement that the standard for future entrants for officers is to be raised, but I deplore what I consider the false economy in the case of university training. Similarly, I commend the scheme of the Daily Express and the Air League which will encourage youth to build their own aircraft. Such schemes as this could be very helpful in recruiting.
For years to come we shall also require first-class aircraft and an efficient aircraft industry. But what are our plans? It is estimated that the R.A.F.'s front line combat strength will, by 1975, be under 500 aircraft. That would be less than the available aircraft at present possessed by North Korea, with 590, by Japan, with 570, and by Poland and


Sweden. Except for the Harrier, we shall still be dependent on fixed and known concrete runways at bases vulnerable to instant destruction by rocket or other attack.
British air power as at present planned is inadequate even for a European rôle. I believe that we should be planning for double strength—for a front line combat force of 1,000 aircraft—which, by 1975, should be mainly vertical take-off and landing types, capable of operation with equal ease from mobile bases ashore or afloat. We should have a transport support force with the emphasis upon close support of the forces in the field, in particular V.T.O.L. air forces operating from mobile bases.
At the moment, we have a rather big transport force. Is it being streamlined into an efficient support force? The commitment of all our aircraft to Europe leaves some of us in grave doubt as to whether we could call upon them independently in a situation of sudden dire need. Can the Minister give a categorical assurance on that?
The Government hope to conclude an agreement with West Germany to provide a swing-wing combat plane. What is the French antagonism to this? Are they helping or obstructing in the hope that we shall become dependent on their Mirage G? The Government should tell both West Germany and France, and Europe generally, that, if sensible arrangements and agreements are not forthcoming very quickly, we shall go it alone. Of course, this would be expensive and of course it would be cheaper if we could get joint production of the planes we require. But the certainty is not the same in a joint production effort.
We must have a firm decision and quickly—either a firm agreement of joint arrangement or rapid preparation to build our own aircraft. If we have to go it alone, we must above all stick to the decision and build the 300 combat planes the R.A.F. requires. We could then compete for orders in Europe with a fair chance of getting them, for we could build a fine aircraft.
The Conservatives have been chided for the money lost in defence projects during their 13 years of office, but we were told recently in a Written Answer that R.A.F. projects cancelled between 1st

October, 1964, and the end of 1968, just over four years, numbered six and that the total expenditure was expected to be about £225 million. Presumably this covers the TSR2, the P1154, the HS681, the AFVG, the F111K and the Chinnock. What Britain would now give for the TSR2! I hope that the lesson has been learnt.
Government policy is not helping the British aircraft industry, which earned £300 million in exports last year. Its capacity to earn in the next 10 years depends on what the Government do now to help. Unless the Government help, Europe could decide the destiny of our aircraft industry and France could take the leadership in the building of aircraft.
We want our own aircraft orders. We want to see expansion and extension of our factories. We do not want to see them closing down, as the Rolls-Royce factory in my constituency will do in a few weeks' time. The same story can be told in other parts of the country, for the aircraft and other industries. Design teams are being dispersed when we know how long it takes to build them up.
The Government should have another think about the whole matter and about the valuable "know-how" which is an off-shoot of aircraft production and which is invaluable for commercial interests. Do we want to forego these in this technological age? We must get and give work to our aircraft industry, thereby giving security to our skilled workers and a morale boost to the R.A.F. The defences of this country demand it, the people require it, the R.A.F. deserves to be given the necessary hardware.

9.42 p.m.

Mr. Robert Howarth: I wonder if the hon. and gallant Member for Wembley, North (Sir E. Bullus) is really suggesting that we should not only double the proposed strength of our front line aircraft in Europe but also keep a capability east of Suez, which I understand is official Conservative policy? If so, it would so increase the defence budget as to put it way beyond our economic capability. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) did not suggest that course; he was far more guarded in his comments.
The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South criticised my right hon. Friend the


Secretary of State for Defence by suggesting that because, in his view, we were not making sufficient effort in the face of increased Russian naval activity in many of the world's oceans, there would be a diminution of United States support for ourselves and the Western Alliance. He made a fair point which must be taken into account, but I was surprised that he did not mention that we are not the only member of the Western Alliance.
If, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, it is in our interest to consider considerably stepping up surveillance by reconnaissance aircraft, what does he consider should be the position of other Western European countries which also depend a great deal on merchant ships to bring in their oil and raw materials? In other words, why did he pick on the defence effort of the United Kingdom? What about the effort that should be made, according to his thesis, by other members of the Western Alliance?
I believe that the effort being made by Her Majesty's Government in concentrating our defence in Europe is correct. This matter was debated last week, and this is neither the place nor the time to go over that ground.
The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South also criticised the Government for what he described as their lack of effort in attempting to sell military equipment to the United States. Although I drew his attention to the Harrier, I could have mentioned the fact that engines are being bought by American aircraft manufacturers for military aircraft; and, of course, the Handley Page Jetstream is being bought by the United States Air Force. I think it is the only foreign aircraft which will be in service with the United States Air Force. Prospects for the Harrier are quite good according to American journals, which may be seen in the Library.
The last 12 months have been an exciting, demanding and rewarding period for the R.A.F. The first squadrons of the Phantom, an American aircraft with Rolls-Royce Spey engines, is giving the R.A.F. outstanding aircraft. The Harrier squadrons will be formed later this year and will come into more numerous service in 1970, and similarly there will be the Buccaneers specially ordered for the R.A.F. or transferred from the Naval Air Force.
These three aircraft, the Phantom, Harrier and Buccaneer, represent a strike and defence force of first-class capability, and I am sure that in the hands of the R.A.F. they will give considerable service and protection to this country, in Europe and in adjoining areas. I have in mind the Mediterranean areas. These aircraft are joining the Hercules transport aircraft, the V Bombers, Lightnings, VC. 10s and Belfasts. Coming along from 1970 onwards, we have the Nimrod maritime reconnaissance aircraft, which will replace the Shackleton. It is an aircraft of exceedingly long range, high speed and great reconnoitre capability. The Jaguar will also be coming into service from about 1971 onwards. That is an outstanding supersonic strike aircraft. We have had details of the Anglo-French helicopters, which also will be coming into service.
All this I recount, because it should be set against the tale of woe which we have heard from the Opposition. The R.A.F. at the moment has first-class equipment, and in the next 12 months to two years it will have equally outstanding aircraft which will have many years of service ahead in the hands of the R.A.F. This is first-class equipment of which we can be proud. Many of these aircraft have great export potential. Not only is the United States interested in the Harrier, but so also are other countries. This presumably will firm up when the Harrier comes into R.A.F. service in squadron numbers, and the Jaguar is expected to be an aircraft with great sales potential. It is believed that this will prove attractive to many friendly air forces throughout the world. This is true also of the Anglo-French helicopter and the B.A.C. 162 training aircraft. There is no doubt that, as we see from export figures, the British aircraft industry is making a great contribution to the export effort. On the decisions which have been made, and which I hope will quickly be made, it will continue its contribution to the export performance of the country.
On the equipment side, I want to comment on the multi-rôle combat aircraft. This is an issue of outstanding importance, not only to Britain and her defence and to her Alliance, but also to the industry. When considering, on the


one hand, the aircraft that need replacement by the multi-rôle combat aircraft, if this is what we are to have, we must also consider the potential opposition to an aircraft which we hope that the R.A.F. will have in the mid-1970s.
To this end I want to refer to the equipment made available by the Soviet Union to her own air forces and to other air forces in various parts of the world. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South mentioned a number of the very advanced aircraft available to the Soviet Union. Only this afternoon I took the trouble to look up a reference book in the Library. It was a salutary lesson of which I hope that my hon. Friends the Members for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) and for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), who have tabled this unfortunate Amendment, will avail themselves. They will see there the range of equipment available to the Soviet Union, equipment which is not being made just for the glorification of the Russian aircraft industry but which clearly has a purpose.
The Soviet Union has in the Mig 23 an all-weather fighter which for some time has held height and speed records and which is thought to be capable of speeds of Mach 3. It is an aircraft which is already in service in large numbers in the Soviet Union, it is thought. Similarly, there is the Subhoi twin-jet single seater, a Mach 2·5 plus aircraft. There is the Yak-28 and other supersonic combat aircraft. The list is long and impressive. I hope that my hon. Friends who have tabled this fantastic Amendment will take the trouble to inform themselves on the type of equipment which is available to the Soviet Union.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am very well acquainted with the Soviet Union and its development in the air.

Mr. Howarth: I wonder.

Mr. Hughes: I think that I have travelled in the Soviet Union more than most Members in the House, and travelled more by air. I do not doubt that the Soviet Union has tremendous air potentiality for destruction. If the two forces met, there would be nothing for it but the destruction of Western

Europe. What is the point of the argument? Nobody denies that the Russians have a very powerful air force. The question is: what lesson is there for the people of Britain? If that powerful air force gets into action, we are destroyed.

Mr. Howarth: One of the lessons which I draw is that I wish I could think that there was a debate such as this going on at present in the Soviet Union with Soviet Deputies moving an Amendment of the type that my hon. Friends have tabled. That does not happen. In view of what happened recently in Czechoslovakia, I can only express my repeated amazement that my hon. Friends should table this Amendment, remembering the activities of the Warsaw Pact countries against one of their own numbers, never mind us.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: How could the possession of a powerful air force by Britain possibly help Czechoslovakia?

Mr. Howarth: I am not suggesting that it would necessarily have helped Czechoslovakia. I know, however, that the Soviet Union could not make the same sort of move against ourselves or any other member of the Western Alliance precisely because we have forces available to us capable of making a very firm and clear answer to any threat from the Soviet Union.
It is interesting to note also, in connection with Eastern European forces, that Yugoslavia, which herself has been under threat on a number of occasions from the Soviet and her allies in Eastern Europe, has made it clear that she will militarily resist any move against her of the type made against Czechoslovakia. So far at least, fortunately, no such move has been made.
However, let me continue on the point I was making about the equipment which the potential opponents of the Western Alliance have available to them.
I was discussing some of the very advanced fighters, first-class aircraft, available to the Soviet Union. Similarly, the Soviet Union has supersonic bombers as well as the giant TU20 with stand-off missiles available. As regards transport aircraft, the position is probably well known to hon. Members present this evening. The Soviet Union has also—this is interesting—a maritime reconnaissance


aircraft which is in squadron service and has been for several years, a pure jet aircraft. At the moment, there is nothing comparable to it in the West, though there will be when the Nimrod comes along. This aircraft, the MYA 4, has capabilities well beyond those available to the Western Alliance at this stage.
Remembering the prototype aircraft displayed over two years ago, we see that the Soviet Union is experimenting with variable geometry aircraft, with VTOL and STOL aircraft, and there is little doubt that we shall see these aircraft coming into squadron service in the next few years.
In considering the Royal Air Force, its present equipment and the equipment which we hope it will have in the next few years, it is necessary to understand what equipment is available to those who could, perhaps, represent a threat to our whole way of life in Western Europe.
The point I make in connection with the importance of advanced combat aircraft to our industry—I agree with other hon. Members here—is that, if agreement cannot be reached shortly on a joint project with certain of our allies in N.A.T.O., a firm decision should be taken that we shall build on our own account an advanced military aircraft to replace those which are now becoming quite old and are outclassed easily by equipment not only of the Soviet Union but of other countries to which she has supplied equipment, even Arab countries as well as countries in the Far East.
We know what the capability of the industry is. It is the third largest aircraft industry in the world and is well able to build an advanced military aircraft. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will come quickly to a decision, since time is of the essence here. It will take about four years before we see such an aircraft flying in prototype form, and another two years before it is in squadron service. By then, we shall be well into the mid-1970s. I trust that a decision will be forthcoming in the next few months.
It is a happy circumstance that we are able to have this debate near the 50th anniversary of the Royal Air Force, a Service which has an outstanding record in the defence of this country. I hope that hon. Members will do as the two Front Bench spokesmen did and take this opportunity to express our thanks for its service in the past and our confidence in the service which it will render in the future.

9.58 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I hope that the hon. Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Robert Howarth) will excuse me if I do not follow him, save to agree very largely with the strictures which he passed on the inadequacy of the Government's defence programme.
The Government's defence policy now involves drastic new responsibilities for the Royal Air Force, particularly maritime responsibilities, and it is to these that I shall direct special attention to night. The Royal Air Force will take over entire responsibility for the air de fence and air support of the fleet and our merchant navy except for the helicopter element of this task. Similarly, this year the navy formally takes over the strategic deterrent rôle from the Royal Air Force. These are major changes, representing a watershed in our maritime history. The moment is therefore appropriate to discuss the relationship between the Royal Air Force and the Navy. There has been, to say the least, healthy rivalry between the two Services for 50 years. It started in 1918 when the Royal Air Force, on its formation, incorporated the Royal Naval Air Service, and it continued through the 1920s and 1930s—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That this day the Business of Supply may be taken after Ten o'clock and that the proceedings on Vote A of the Defence (Air) Estimates, 1969–70, the Immigration Appeals Bill and on the Genocide Bill [Lords] may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed. — [Mr. McBride.]

SUPPLY

[13TH ALLOTTED DAY],—again considered.

DEFENCE (AIR) ESTIMATES, 1969–70, VOTE A

Question again proposed.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: This rivalry continued through all the vicissitudes of the bombers versus battleship controversy and so on. In 1937 Mr. Neville Chamberlain, the then Prime Minister, announced the Inskip Award which created the Fleet Air Arm.

Mr. Speaker: With respect, I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will come to the Estimates.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I was explaining the very important point of the relationship between the two Forces which are the most important part of the Estimates.
In the new situation which we now face in 1969, co-operation between the two Services is even more urgently needed. I do not want to rake over the embers of any old controversies, but urge that the Navy and Royal Air Force shall once and for all bury the hatchet in the predicament they face under these Estimates. In using the term "bury the hatchet" I do not wish to imply that there has been serious bad blood between the two Services. At working level, cooperation has almost always been excellent, and I confess an enormous admiration for what the Royal Air Force has done and for what it is today.
It is very apparent that the most serious differences of opinion between the two Services are liable to arise in Whitehall. It is understandable that officers who reach the top of the tree in their own Service should find it necessary to fight tooth and nail for the very survival of the Service to which they have belonged all their Service lives when it seems to them that it may be in peril. The more cuts are applied, as is happening in these Estimates, the more true this becomes.
Tragically, the result has been, and must always be, that the disunited Services will be seen off by the "Abominable No-men" in the Treasury. Fortunately, we have today both a Chief of the Air Staff and a First Sea Lord

who are big enough men to see the need for real co-operation and, I am sure, to act upon it.
It is arguable that the nuclear deterrent should be provided on a completely separate Vote both for manpower and finance, that could be part of the central Defence Estimates and not a millstone around the neck of whichever Service is responsible at the time for providing it.
It is no good jobbing backwards. Now that we have come to this watershed in our history there are three essentials for the Services in the light of the current vast Soviet maritime expansion. The first is that the Royal Air Force must take really seriously its new responsibility for flying from ships, Second, the Navy must accept the new state of affairs. It must not lament the demise of the Fleet Air Arm, and it must work with the Royal Air Force to produce really effective air support and air defence both for the Fleet and—I emphasise this to the Minister—our seaborne trade world-wide. Third, both Services must co-operate urgently to produce the technical infrastructure which this new relationship will require, particularly as regards what ships are to be built, what technical manpower is to be trained for servicing our Royal Air Force aircraft at sea, and so on.
The Royal Navy understands the threat from the sea because trade protection has always been its foremost task. Fortunately, there are signs that the R.A.F. understands this too. I was delighted to see the following passage in an article by the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Coastal Command, in an excellent R.A.F. publication called The New Dawn. He said on page 13:
Two main factors … have now emerged. These are firstly the missile firing submarines … and secondly the nuclear deterrent stalemate, with the consequent increased likelihood of limited wars.
It is also of note that the influential Air League has emphasised the importance of maritime air, including the use of aircraft carriers.
But nothing the Services can do by cooperating together can be of any avail unless the Secretary of State will also cooperate and provide the men, money, ships and aircraft. At this point, the spotlight focuses directly on him—and incidentally he is not here. We see him


ruddy and chubby, blinking at the light, but not showing much sign that he understands the magnitude of the new task he has given to the R.A.F. This year's White Paper on Defence devotes only one paragraph in its policy chapter to the threat at sea. The realities are very different. I shall not, however, weary the House with a tabulated list of the huge threats, which other hon. Members have mentioned.
It is not good enough for the Secretary of State to give the R.A.F. this great additional responsibility and not provide enough aircraft for the purpose, nor the men to man them, nor the flat-topped ships for them to fly from. The vast and vitally important maritime task which the right hon. Gentleman has given the R.A.F., and which it will wish to carry out efficiently and effectively, simply cannot be reconciled with his boast that he hopes to reduce expenditure on defence to 5 per cent. of the gross national product by 1972.
The right hon. Gentleman is trying to deceive the House, the country and the officers and men of the R.A.F. This is why we condemn him and his policies.
One of two things must be true. Either he does not realise the facts, in which case he should resign; or else he does realise the facts but cannot carry his point in Cabinet, in which case all the more so he should resign. I therefore end up with a call for his resignation.

10.8 p.m.

Mr. Frank Hooley: I want to concentrate on what I believe to be the purpose of the debate—the question of the financial control exercised over this part of our defence expenditure. The difficulty about discussing the strictly financial aspect of this Vote is that we are discussing only estimates, do not know how the appropriations will eventually work out and have no immediate comparison, since we have no detailed appropriations even for 1968–69. I hope, therefore, that I shall not be ruled out of order if I look at some figures going back just three financial years. The point I wish to make is that there does not seem to have been in the past very tight estimating or very tight control over the enormous sums of money which the House has provided on the Vote.
In 1965–66, the Air Estimates were under-spent by £28 million—an error of 4½ per cent. In 1966–67 the under-spending was £26 million, which was an error of 5 per cent. We did somewhat better in 1967–68, with an error of £10 million, or only 2 per cent., which was not too bad.
Hon. Members may ask, "Why are you worried about under-spending? If there was a large over-spending of what had been authorised you might get worried, but why worry if the expenditure has fallen somewhat short of what was originally forecast?". The reason why I am worried is that these figures seem to show that the original forecasts were not intelligently and coherently thought out, and contained large sums of money which were not required, and in the event were not used.
The Vote in which the greatest error occurs is Vote 7 to which my hon. Friend referred in passing, and which constitutes about half of these Estimates. In 1965–66 there was an error of no less than £55 million on the calculation for Vote 7, which was an error of 20 per cent., but it looked rather better when the figures were published because the TSR2 was cancelled and the Department managed to set off against that £55 million error £35 million compensation for the cancellation of the TSR2, a sum which was not included in the original Estimates, but which made the out-turn look somewhat more respectable. The error on Vote 7 in that year was a 10 per cent. error, even after the £35 million offset for the TSR2 cancellation. Whereas in that year £281 million had been asked for, only £257 million were spent.
In 1966–67 there was again a 10 per cent. error, when £260 million was asked for, and only £236 million were spent. I am glad to see—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will come to the Estimates in due course.

Mr. Hooley: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for allowing me to go as far as I did. It is somewhat difficult to make a sensible appraisal of the current figures without trying to compare them with figures we know. We cannot now know the out-turn of these Estimates, nor,


I am sorry to say, do we know the outturn of the 1968–69 figures, so that even an immediate comparison is not sensible, and it is difficult to assess how sensible these Estimates are unless we have some firm figures of out-turn with which to make a comparison. I apologise for going back to those figures, but they are the only firm figures which exist.
The striking thing about Vote 7 in the current Estimates is that it has shot up to the incredible figure of £302 million, compared with an actual expenditure three years ago of £236 million. This is an increase of 30 per cent. in cash terms, but probably somewhat less allowing for the decline in the purchasing power of money. This is a 30 per cent. increase, at a time when we are told by the Government that we are scaling down our commitments, that we are withdrawing from the Far East, that we are withdrawing from the Middle East, and when the rôle of the Royal Air Force will presumably become integrated with our N.A.T.O. defences generally and concentrated on Europe. I think that the Government owe the House an explanation for this startling escalation in Vote 7 which accounts for half of the Estimates, in the light of the deliberate and calculated reduction of commitments—which I support—and which presumably result in a reduction in the commitments of the R.A.F. itself.
The House is entitled to ask, "Why complain if the Department spends less money than it originally claimed it wanted? Is it not much more unsatisfactory if it overspends?". My answer to that is that it depends on the degree either way. An overspending of a very small percentage would not be regarded as seriously worthy of criticism, but an error in estimating of 10 per cent.—and these votes in past years have contained errors of 10 per cent.—indicates that there is no proper control over this vote and that the sums of money asked for are wildly inaccurate. One wonders just how tightly control is exercised when the actual appropriations take place.
The first objection to this state of affairs is that the estimating itself is grossly inefficient. I cannot accept an estimate with an error of 10 per cent. as being an efficient estimate. The second objection is that when my right

hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence comes to make his claim on the public purse he is in competition with other Departments of State, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer must rule on the demands he makes in the light of the demands made by other public sectors for the total money available.
If, therefore, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is preempting large sums of money—and these are large sums of money, £24 million and more—which his Department does not require and which it clearly has not accurately calculated, it is doing so to the detriment of other Departments of State, such as Social Services, Education. Health and so on, which might make very good use of these moneys.
Further, if the Services have at their disposal sums of money of the order of £24 million which they do not require, they have a considerable amount of leeway or slippage to play around with, which can scarcely encourage tight control of expenditure when they come to decide whether or not they want the money for a new weapon, a new piece of equipment or for research.
I turn now to the purchase of Phantom aircraft, which I believe was originally authorised in 1964, which in itself was a perfectly sensible decision. It was a decision to do away with the need for uncertain expenditure on research and development and to purchase from our major military ally a proven battle aircraft of unquestionable value in military terms and one which, presumably, the R.A.F. decided it could use for its own purposes. What happened? It was decided first to put in a new engine. The airframe then had to be altered to accommodate the engine. The avionics and the attack system were then changed for reasons which are not clear. The Public Accounts Committee was by no means convinced of the necessity for this change in navigational attack and radio equipment, and said so in its report last year.
This was a proven aircraft; 3,000 had already been produced for the United States Air Force. The whole advantage of buying an off-the-peg aircraft was completely destroyed by the demand for the new engine, which meant a change in the airframe and changes in the electronics, the avionics and the attack


system. The result of making all these changes was that the aircraft cost twice as much. The unit cost was about double what it would have been had we bought the United States aircraft straight off the peg.
There may well have been technological reasons for the change in the engine. There may have been reasons for the change giving advantages to British industry. What I am less certain about is why the R.A.F. needed this special avionic and attack system all of its own when we were purchasing an aircraft from one of the major military powers in the world, an ally with whom we have to work in close co-operation.

Mr. Dalyell: Would not my hon. Friend agree that this is a classic argument for co-operation at a market level rather than at a production level?

Mr. Hooley: I shall be coming on to the question of co-operation when I consider the Anglo-German aircraft.
What it indicates is that, when the R.A.F. goes shopping around for aircraft, obviously it must have the aircraft that it needs, but the Department must resist the demands for specialised requirements peculiar to our own Defence Forces.
I want to elaborate that point in relation to the Anglo-German multi-role combat aircraft, which was referred to earlier in the debate. The principle of co-operation in this is perfectly sound. Obviously it is intelligent for two, three or four major allies within the N.A.T.O. Alliance, if they want this kind of weapon, to team up in order to produce it. What is not clear to me is why we want two versions of this aircraft. Why is the R.A.F. requirement different from the German requirement? Why does this have to be a compromise aircraft?
We are agreed that, in the future, the R.A.F. is not to have a rôle outside Europe. We are winding up our Far East and Middle East commitments and, to the best of my knowledge, there is no intention of assuming commitments in Southern Africa or other parts of the world. If the aircraft is being built for operational requirements within N.A.T.O., why is it that the operational requirements of the R.A.F. are so distinctive from those of the German, Italian and Dutch air forces? Apparently the French do not want this

type of aircraft at all. It is true that we have achieved an 80 per cent. common design requirement, but what is not obvious to me is why we cannot agree on an identical aircraft for what is bound to be an identical role. It is in the same theatre for the same purpose, and I cannot understand why the R.A.F. has to have its own special version.
I would ask my hon. Friend to assure us that, in view of the increasingly enormous sums which this House is being asked to vote, proper control and supervision is exercised over the expenditure of these monies.

10.23 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: I want briefly to refer to what I believe to be three serious gaps in the Government's stewardship of the R.A.F. The first concerns the absence of a long-range strike reconnaisance aircraft.
The House knows that the deterrent has been taken over by the Royal Navy's submarines, but I suggest that there is a need for the R.A.F. to have a long-range strike aircraft armed certainly with conventional weapons and probably also nuclear weapons. Whether or not hon. Members agree with that, I believe that they will agree that it is essential for the R.A.F. to have a long-range reconnaisance aircraft both for operations in Europe and for the defence of shipping throughout the world.
The Canberras and V-bombers are exercising this rôle at the moment. However, both are obsolete and gradually are being phased out. The TSR2 and the F111 are not being proceeded with, and all that we have and are likely to have for the next few years is the Buccaneer. That is an excellent plane. It is built in my constituency, and I have a good knowledge of it. But I would remind the House that it was designed some ten years ago as a maritime aircraft. Now it is being used in a different rôle. Perhaps I might also remind the House that, seven or eight years ago, I was trying in the House to persuade the R.A.F. to take this very aircraft. If it had taken it then, a tremendous amount of Government money would have been saved. However, because of friction between the Royal Navy and the R.A.F., unfortunately, it did not happen. This plane is subsonic. This can be an advantage


because it can get in under the radar beam when attacking a target.
I should like to know whether the order for Buccaneers which was announced at the end of last year is for the Mark 2 or for an improved design with perhaps more range and, therefore, a longer reconnaissance capability. The reconaissance capability is vital to the future of the R.A.F. if the plane is to fulfil its functions well into the 1970s.
I should like to ask the Minister about the M.R.C.A. I imagine that this aircraft will eventually supplant the Buccaneer as the long range reconaissance and strike aircraft. It is not really the successor of the A.F.V.G., which I think was more of a fighter. This is to be a long-range aircraft in the strike and reconaissance rôle. I hope that the Minister will confirm that. Is there not a grave danger, unless this aircraft is designed and produced in the near future, our design teams will begin losing their expertise? It seems when we drop one design after another and purchase American aircraft we lose a number of our design teams which are essential to our future research and expertise.
I remind the House, as did my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wembley North (Sir E. Bullus), that the Daily Telegraph, in an article on 1st March, stated that the R.A.F. combat strength had fallen to 460 aircraft, which included 144 Canberras which are now obsolete. This puts Britain in 14th place below countries such as North Korea, Sweden, Turkey, Italy, Japan and even India in respect of combat strength. This is a serious matter and must be taken seriously by both sides.
The second matter concerns maritime aircraft. The Minister must agree that shipping has to be protected. There are over 2,000 British ships at sea in various parts of the world. It is possible, in the era of nuclear stalemate, that we could possibly get a conventional war at sea— for example, in the Indian Ocean with a "middle Power". Therefore, our shipping would have to be protected from the air.
I put to the House in an earlier debate that to cover shipping from possible air attack we need two aircraft airborne and four at two minutes' notice.

If we provide these aircraft from a carrier, flat-top, call it what we will, we can do it with one squadron. If we do it from a land base some distance away we will need six aircraft over the convoy or ship, six aircraft on their way out and six aircraft on their way back. The ratio is one squadron to nine. I want to know what the Government are doing about it. They did not question those figures when I put them to the House. Presumably they accept them. Therefore, they must accept that there is an important rôle for the R.A.F. in operating from ships at sea.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Could the hon. Gentleman explain how a ship at sea could be protected from a rocket?

Mr. Wall: The real object of aircraft protection of ships at sea is against other aircraft or possibly against missile discharging warships. The defence of ships at sea from rockets or missiles would be from their own surface to air missiles which are being considerably improved in the Royal Navy.
Concerning the Mediterranean, it is clear that the R.A.F. can operate from land bases. But this could not happen in the Indian Ocean area. We have Gan, Diego Garcia and Masera, and that is about all. Therefore, it is essential for aircraft—probably vertical take-off aircraft—to be provided operating from ships. The Minister agreed this was being examined by the Government and said that they would have to be provided for the R.A.F.
What measures are the Government taking for training the R.A.F. for operating from ships? This is not an easy matter. It caused a great deal of controversy in the 1920s and 1930s, and experience during the war revealed the need for specially trained pilots to operate from ships as well as from land bases to cover to protect our shipping. One does not get value from these pilots unless they are specially trained for this work.
What plans does the Minister have for training R.A.F. crews in this task? I am not making a party point in asking this question because I realise that throughout the history of the R.A.F. priority has never been given to the protection of shipping, whichever party has been in power. It is clear that unless


the Government ensure that special measures are taken to train special R.A.F. crews in this work—perhaps a section of the R.A.F. could be devoted to this task—our shipping will be inadequately protected. There would therefore be an advantage in maintaining the existing Fleet Air Arm for this purpose, at least while additional crews are being trained. Naval and R.A.F. aircrews would then be interchangeable.
In a previous debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy said that he had found a part of my speech, in which I had referred to the Simonstown Agreement and the Beira Patrol, amusing. I hope that the Minister will not burst his sides laughing tonight when I refer to the possible sale of Nimrods to South Africa. It seems utterly crazy, since we have the best

modern aircraft of its type in the world, that we apparently do not intend to sell it to South Africa. I hope that the Minister will not reply that South Africa has not placed orders for this aircraft. We all know that the South African Government will not place such orders until they know that they will get the necessary export licences. Does not this illustrate the neglect of maritime strategy that is occuring under the present Government and their general neglect of the British aircraft industry? It all stems from their basic failure to appreciate that an island such as ours lives by trade alone. Unless they appreciate this and initiate a proper maritime strategy, there will be danger ahead for us; and I hope that the Minister will concentrate on this issue and answer some of these questions when he winds up.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I beg to move,
That the said number to reduced by 1,000 men.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Robert Howarth) described the Motion as "unfortunate". He may be right, although it is highly traditional. It is the sort of Motion which has been moved from time immemorial in this type of debate. Both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence have moved similar Motions on previous occasions.
Having made that clear, I wish it to be equally clear that the terms of the Amendment are governed to some extent by the Table Office. We are technically discussing Vote A, and even if we had wished to do so, we could not have moved a more drastic type of Amendment to, for example, alter the Government's defence policy. In other words, we are limited to moving to reduce the strength of the R.A.F. by 1,000 men, but in doing so we are entitled to indicate our displeasure with some aspects of the defence policy.
Compared with the sort of defence policy that hon. Gentlemen opposite would introduce, this one is good. The summary of the policy, of which this Vote is a part, contained in the conclusion of the Green Paper is sensible and reasonable. It is certainly more sensible and reasonable than the sort of policy that hon. Gentlemen opposite have indicated they would introduce if the country should suffer the misfortune of the Conservatives being elected to power. Apparently they would pursue a policy entirely without any regard to the relative position of this country to other countries. They would pursue a policy without regard to the financial strength of the country. The general policy they have put forward, to come to the particular question—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. We are not debating defence policy as such, but Vote A of the Air Estimates. Perhaps the hon. Member will confine his remarks to that.

Mr. Jenkins: I will follow your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In opening the debate, my hon. Friend confined his remarks very closely to the question before

us, but the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield), who followed him, ranged over the whole of defence policy. You were kind to him on that occasion, and I hope that if I follow him a little way you will permit me to do so, but I shall try to remain within the guidance which you were so kind as to give me.
In the speech of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield), I was rather reminded of those officers with whom I had the honour to serve in the war. They carried on their breasts an R.F.C. badge and had to be placed in positions of lesser importance because they tended to think they were fighting the 1914–18 war.

Mr. Corfield: That is, of course, the standard crack of those who are determined not to face reality.

Mr. Jenkins: I think that when the hon. Member dies it will be found that engraved on his heart will be 1939–45.
I had the privilege of serving in Fighter Command, and I am not without affection for the Royal Air Force. It was a civilised command, because it was engaged on a defensive operation; we were engaged in repelling attack. What frightens many of us is that that kind of defence is finished; no longer is there defence but counter-offence. This is an alarming development. It is no longer a question of mounting a response to attack. All the countries of the world in their air forces are mounting a policy of counter-offensive.
I have put forward this Amendment to reduce the strength of the Royal Air Force because, although I think my right hon. Friends are pursuing a defence policy which is much more realistic and sensible than the policy which would be followed by hon. Members opposite, even my right hon. Friends have not come to terms with the realities of the situation in the world. The policies they are following entail an unnecessarily larger air force than this country is capable of deploying. If they were to follow not even the relatively sensible policies in the defence Green Paper, as distinct from the policies of hon. Members opposite, but which were put before the electorate in 1964 and 1966, particularly in relation to air defence, which


reflected the views of the party to which they and I belong, it would be much more sensible.

Mr. Goodhew: The hon. Member is putting the accent on defence, particularly in the case of Fighter Command in the last war. Does he not realise that once the crew is in the air, whether it is the Few in 1939 to 1945 or the crew today, it is very much a matter of offence and attack?

Mr. Jenkins: The hon. Member is forgetting that there is a difference between attacking a civilian population and defending against a fighter. Anyone who knows what happened in the last war knows that the standards declined. At the beginning of the last war, we were issued with things called rules of war and were told what was right and what was wrong and what not to do. By the end of the war we were bombing civilians wholesale.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will assist the Chair by indicating to which pages in the Defence Estimates dealing with the Royal Air Force he is relating his argument. The Estimates are for expenditure in the coming year, not for expenditure in 1939.

Mr. Jenkins: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to you for giving me that advice, which I will immediately follow. I was drawing attention to Vote 7, Class C—Armament, Ammunition and Explosives. I was about to suggest that the nature of the armament, ammunition and explosives currently employed by the Royal Air Force fits it for a rôle entirely different from that which it used to perform. In other words, it is a counter-offensive rôle at best and an offensive rôle at worst. There is no defensive rôle such as at least one command in the Royal Air Force used to perform.
I come to why I seek to reduce the number of men engaged by 1,000. I want to press the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who asked what the armament, ammunition and explosives would entail. I, too, would like to know how much napalm is included in this item of
Aircraft armament, ancillary equipment for guided missiles, ground defence weapons, etc.

To what extent is nuclear armament involved in
Ammunition, rockets, bombs, guided missiles, torpedoes, etc."?
Are there any proposals for the distribution of chemical and biological means of warfare? Are they concealed in these subheads? If so, how much is involved in the spreading of disease among other people? What preparations have we got for that under this Vote?
I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will enlighten us on some of these points, because in some ways the Vote which we are discussing serves to conceal rather than to reveal the facts of air warfare as it is in these times. The more we know about the real nature of air warfare the better we shall be placed to evaluate the question whether we are getting value for money, so to speak.
In relation to air warfare, and possibly in relation to all other warfare, the last sensible large war has already been fought. There is not likely to be any more major warfare of a sensible character. This relates particularly to the question of air warfare and the amount of money and numbers of people involved. It therefore is closely related to this Vote and to the Amendment. My right hon. Friends would be well advised to reconsider their policy and see whether they could not reshape it and bring it more into line with what was laid down in their 1966 manifesto, in which they said, as regards our activity in the air and as regards our defence activity generally:
Labour's immediate objectives are agreements to stop all nuclear tests and prevent the spread of nuclear weapons; further, Labour will seek agreements to create nuclear-free zones and make possible agreed and verified international disarmament.
There have been signs in recent months that my right hon. Friends have moved in that direction. I hope that they will continue to do so. In the meantime, I suggest that they investigate the possibilities of adopting a more defensive attitude to defence and not lining themselves up, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State seems to have lined himself up, with the policy which was advocated by the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) in 1957—the counter-nuclear policy whereby a conventional attack is countered by a nuclear


response, in which aircraft would no doubt play a substantial part. It appears that the policy which we attacked when we were in opposition is one which we have adopted now that we are the Government. I hope that my hon. Friend can assure me that we have not in government adopted the policies that we attacked when we were in opposition.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. R. Chichester-Clark: I was rather disappointed at the beginning of the debate, when the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) did his best to provoke the Minister of Defence for Equipment into a short adventure in the Caribbean in the neighbourhood of Anguilla, that the Minister would not follow him there. Had he done so, I should like to have taken him a little further and pinned him down and asked him how he proposed, in the event of an attack upon it, to defend British Honduras and with what aeroplanes and from where. However, it was fairly clear that the Minister was not to be drawn, unless we hear from him later in the debate.
In his very forward-looking speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) referred to the importance of Coastal Command and spoke sadly of the fact that we had only 38 Nimrods in place of seven squadrons of Shackletons, and one of which has since February been in the Mediterranean. It is largely because we have only 38 Nimrods that I am speaking in this debate, because the moment I heard that the number was to be only 38, I was well aware that it was unlikely that three Coastal Command stations were to be kept open in the United Kingdom. And so it proved. That is why I am on my feet tonight to make—I do not apologise for it, because it is of importance —a purely constituency speech about the closure of one of those Coastal Command stations, the Royal Air Force station at Ballykelly, in my constituency.
As I said last year in this same debate, this means unemployment for hundreds of my constituents in an area of very high unemployment. It also means a loss of spending power of about £1¼ million in an area which cannot afford that loss and where the economy is really the economy of the Royal Air Force.

Indeed, the whole community there has grown up around the Royal Air Force. If the closure comes about, it will have an appalling effect on the little village of Ballykelly, Limavady and the surrounding district.
I spoke last year of the cost to the local authorities of the amenities which they provided as facilities for the Royal Air Force and as a result of Government pledges which flowed very glibly from right hon. and hon. Members opposite in the months before. I spoke in some detail also last year on what that decision had done to the local authorities concerning the large new primary school, which was virtually built specially for the progeny of personnel in the Royal Air Force. Two-thirds of the pupils for that school, which was built at a cost of £¼ million, would have been the sons and daughters of personnel in the Royal Air Force.
I also spoke of the other schools in the area, which were enlarged almost at the behest of the Ministry of Defence, and also of the rate increases which will fall on local residents when the Royal Air Force moves out. I recounted the hardships which would be inflicted on small shopkeepers, hoteliers, restaurant owners and the like, who had in some cases put, as I know for a fact because I have seen them and talked to them, their life savings into improving and modernising their premises as a result of assurances given by members of the Government.
I do not want this year to embarrass right hon. Gentlemen opposite by a repetition of the pledges which they scattered around so liberally in years gone by before the closure was announced. I suppose that one cannot nowadays expect Ministers to resign because they have closed down, or are about to close down, an airfield in Northern Ireland, even at the sort of cost which I have explained. That is too much to expect. But one can ask for some contrition, a little sense of guilt and a sense of the moral responsibility they ought to have for what will happen to the people in that community.
Only on 14th September, 1966, the Leader of the House of Lords, speaking in Londonderry said:
It is highly desirable that the R.A.F. should continue to have a strong presence in Northern Ireland. The R.A.F. for as far ahead as we can see, will remain in Ballykelly.


And so it went on. Pledges fell from the lips of Ministers like rain from the sky in that particularly wet summer of 1967. Even on 13th December, 1967, I was given an oral assurance in the House that all was well. This R.A.F. station is permanently in my "Brought forward" file. It is of such importance to the economy of that part of the world that, virtually every three months, it comes to the top of the file and I ask Questions to see that its future is assured. An oral assurance was given on 13th December, 1967, yet only 15 days later the closure was announced. That is the sort of situation with which we have had to deal.
I hold strongly the view that the Government have a moral responsibility towards these people, in view of their pledges. And so I ask these questions. Have they reconsidered their decision? Are they reconsidering it? If not, what success have they had in finding alternative uses for the airfield, and when will they tell us about them? What can the Minister of State for Equipment tell me about the future of the men who are likely to be displaced? Can he put me in the picture on how fast the rundown is going and what the phasing of it will be in the future? If he cannot tell me all that tonight, perhaps he will be good enough to write to me about it.
Now, another aspect of the matter. Here I thank the Minister's former colleague, who was extremely helpful. The aerodrome there is already being used by one civil operator, Ulster Air Transport. This is very useful, and I have had a great deal of help in the way of bringing that about. In a series of Questions and Answers since then, we have established that the airfield can be used by civil airlines on certain occasions and for certain purposes. What I wish to know is if British European Airways or British United Airways want in the future to use this airfield as a diversionary airport instead of distant Dublin, and if they find in so doing that they must have staff on the premises should diversions occur, will the Minister undertake that premises and accommodation will be found for them? That might make a decision considerably easier.
I have not consulted Ulster Air Transport on the matter, but it is possible that some sharing of accommodation might be feasible and help to solve the

problem. If not, it would be useful to know whether the R.A.F. would provide other accommodation.

The Minister of Defence for Administration (Mr. G. W. Reynolds): There are two airfields which are to close which are permanently emblazoned on my mind: one is Brawdy and the other is Ballykelly. If it is possible to find any alternative use for either of them, we shall do it. The hon. Gentleman is interested in Ballykelly. As regards providing facilities at the aerodrome, I am sympathetic to his request. I assure him that I shall be only too pleased if it is possible to help in any way in the particularly difficult problem which he has in that part of Ulster. I am prepared to look at any request which he makes.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I am grateful for that reassurance. If I may have a little more detail in answer to my specific questions, perhaps on another occasion, I shall be grateful.
Lastly, I come to the question of safety and facilities, so to speak, pertaining to safety. May I be told how the safety facilities at Ballykelly compare with those which are likely to be available at civilian airfields used in the normal way by civil airlines elsewhere? That would be most helpful information.

Mr. Reynolds: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I end as I began. The Government have a self-inflicted responsibility for the people in this area. It must be discharged. What I want is an assurance that it has not been forgotten.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. Tarn Dalyell: Having visited the constituency of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) two years ago, I have a genuine sympathy with the predicament in which he finds himself. I, too, hope that some alternative use can be found for Ballykelly. But it strikes me that his problem is symptomatic of the genuine problem before the House, and that is the way in which these Votes are presented.
I think the Defence White Paper was a superbly-written and extremely coherent and clear document, but I am not happy about the way in which these Votes are


presented. If it is decided that the hon. Gentleman's constituency should rightly be helped, the item should not go on the Defence Vote. It should be a distinct Vote on the notion that social aid has to be given to this area in Northern Ireland. It ought to be separate from the Defence Vote as such. I suspect that constituencies like the hon. Gentleman's have perhaps suffered by an over-compartmentalisation of decision-making in Whitehall. There is a genuine Whitehall problem here which has to be considered.
This brings me to the point where I agree with the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield), who said that these civil by-products of military research are valuable. But if there are by-products from research, should not they be manipulated out of the Defence Vote as such? I hope that by next year, as I have said in previous Defence debates and Estimates debates, some genuine thought will be given to the reconstruction of the Vote as such, and if it is social aid, or OpMac, or research by-products, the figures should appear under separate Votes from the Defence Vote. By all means add the items on the Defence Vote, but let the items be separate because defence policy then becomes more efficient and much clearer.
I am a little impatient with the way in which this debate has taken place and with the way in which the Opposition have constantly asked for more of very many different items. Contrary to general belief, I am not one of those who have ever asked in this House for a general slash. I agree that if we slash things too far, we get into trouble in which a force is no longer a force. But, having said this, it becomes a rather different matter when, for instance, the hon. and gallant Member for Wembley, North (Sir E. Bullus) asked for 500 extra front line aircraft. We have got to be clear what we mean by this. Do we mean 500 extra Phantoms or 500 extra Hunters, or what? There is an obligation on those who ask for this order of escalation in our aircraft needs to be very precise about what they want, why they want it and what it will cost.
It will be within the recollection of the Government Front Bench that I put down a Question about the cost of the 300 or so extra aircraft for which the

hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) asked in the Defence debate. The answer was, I suppose somewhat naturally, that no figure could be given because I was not specific about what kind of aircraft were wanted. But I think it is up to the Government Front Bench to extract from the Opposition precisely what is meant when time and again the Opposition spokesmen say that it is totally inadequate, that we are behind Turkey, North Korea, Italy and various other countries in the number of front line aircraft.
If Defence debates are to be meaningful—and, regardless of party, I think they should be meaningful—we have to be clear about this sort of situation. It would be much clearer if we were given rather better information about unit costs.
I interrupted my hon. Friend on the subject, and it struck me as unreasonable that we could not be given the unit costs of the SA330 and the SA340 helicopters. I know them, but I will not quote them, especially in my position ! It would be meaningful for the debate if these costs were given. I do not believe that they are secret, and I am dissatisfied with the Answer which I received to my Parliamentary Question asking about the unit costs of the SA330 and SA340 Anglo-French helicopters respectively. This seems to be an example of the unnecessary secrecy about which Fulton complained.
I will not repeat many of the points made, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley), about the multi-rôle combat aircraft except to express a view on cooperation. I grant my hon. Friend that the Jaguar has been a success and I also grant him that co-operation at sophisticated levels is becoming better and better. But I wonder whether this kind of co-operation at the production level is, in fact, the optimum kind of co-operation. There have been great difficulties not only in civil developments but also in connection with many of the international fighter and combat aircraft. As my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley said, if there are to be these differences—and I challenge the need for different requirements—in Anglo-German variable geometry aircraft, and if we have to have separate avionics, which leads to separate airframes, which


in turn leads to separate engine requirements, then we get to the situation to which my hon. Friend referred—the extraordinary story of the Spey engine being fitted into the Phantom. Anyone who reflects on the work of the Public Accounts Committee and of my hon. Friends the Members for Bebington (Mr. Brooks) and Heeley, and anyone who looks at the reports which they have been producing, must wonder about the future of international co-operation. I should like to see a situation in which one country in the Western Alliance produced, for instance, the combat aircraft and perhaps we produced the Harrier or the V/STOL or whatever was required by the rest of Europe. I leave that argument on the basis of market co-operation.
May I refer to the very good job which my hon. Friends are doing in the important matter of the career structure of the R.A.F. I hope that the facilities at Cranwell will be used. From my knowledge of the situation, they have done excellent work in creating a situation with the universities, and I hope that it is a success because, as was rightly said in the opening speeches, this is a bold stroke and a risk, for reasons into which I need not go at eleven o'clock. Nevertheless, my hon. Friends deserve great credit.
As my hon. Friend at the Home Office knows, a day's visit was arranged for me to Hendon. It is a pity how few Members of Parliament materialise for such visits. I found it extremely impressive to see the way in which computer techniques were being adapted by the forces. These comments in praise ought to be made, particularly by one such as myself who in the past has been somewhat critical on Air Estimates debates.
I am a little concerned about Mallard. I asked a Question on the subject and the reply was that it was too early to give any indication of production costs. This is linked with another problem. It is all very well for my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley to ask for more accurate accounting. In theory, I am wholly in favour of more accurate forecasting and accounting, but I am not sure how we get the Services to do it in the absence of sufficient technical cost officers. It is a difficult problem whether we should try to pull people out of industry to be technical cost officers when

they are the very people of whom the aircraft industry is desperately short.
I beg the Government to look at the whole problem of adaptation. It seems to me that adaptation over the years has led to an escalation of costs that is entirely unjustified by any supposed gains that we should get from it.
Other hon. Members want to speak, the time is late, and so I should like to rest my case there.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is right. Time is pressing, and I do not wish to detain the House unduly long. Therefore, I shall make one general point straight away, followed by three particular ones.
My general point is that it becomes clearer, year by year, as we go through these stilted, ritual debates on the Service Estimates that we need a better system of keeping ourselves informed on what is going on and the way in which money is being spent in the name of defence. This is not a satisfactory debate, and moreover we know well that tomorrow we shall be extremely unlikely to have any further debate on the Royal Air Force, because other matters will crowd it out. Each year the case for establishing a Specialist Committee on defence becomes stronger and stronger.
I now come to the first of my particular points. In concentrating on them I would not like it to be thought that I under-estimate the importance of the Royal Air Force in our defences, or that other points raised by other speakers are not important. But it would be well for the House to turn its attention briefly to these three matters.
The first is the general use of R.A.F. airfields for civilian purposes. My right hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) touched on this briefly in relation to Ballykelly. I have had some exchanges with the Department on the general subject of the use of the R.A.F. stations in the United Kingdom for civilian flights, and I note with interest that there are only four stations at which scheduled flights operate. There are about 30 stations at which there are less than one civilian flight per week on average, and although there has been a considerable increase


in the total number of flights, from some 46,000 non-scheduled flights in 1965 to 60,000 in 1967, this is very largely accounted for by the enormous activity at White Waltham, where there was a total of about 35,000 non-scheduled movements in 1967. The next largest in that year was Manston where the figure was 9,300. Then the total drops away very rapidly until one comes to Northolt which, although it is comparatively amongst the larger entries in this log, appears to have had no general increase in civilian movements and to be static at the total of about 1,200 movements a year. That seems to me to be quite inadequate.
Taking that with the apparent overall decline in scheduled movements, I consider that there seems to be a considerable under-utilisation of the resources involved in R.A.F. airfields up and down the country. The Department should make every conceivable effort to encourage the civilian use of these fields. I know that there are security considerations. One cannot readily accept civilian flights at a Q.R.A. field. But the competitive development of domestic air services must become more intense. We need regional networks to provide for third level carrier, we need more facilities for air taxis and we need them at weekends and on a 24-hour basis. Though individual station commanders are generally helpful in this context, I am by no means satisfied that the Department's attitude is always as constructive and helpful as it could be.
My second point touches on a matter that is of some sensitivity to the Government as regards security. I am strongly tempted to move that strangers do withdraw before I deal with it, but I realise that this would take up the time of the House. I hope, however, that if the Minister feels he can give an answer he will not hesitate to move such a Motion so that the House may hear it.
My point concerns the number of flying hours of R.A.F. pilots. I have had some exchanges with the Government about this, culminating in an Answer on 18th October last year, when I was told that it would not be in the public interest to publish the average monthly total of flying hours of R.A.F. pilots because:

Taken together with other information which is available it would enable a hostile intelligence service to arrive at a significantly closer assessment of the operational capabilities of the Royal Air Force."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th October, 1968; Vol. 770, c. 177.]
That may be true, although I am sceptical about the validity of the smokescreen. If there is something that should be known about this, it is surely important that the House should be told. Hostile intelligence services probably know it already.
The House has great need of this information, because the operational capability of the R.A.F. depends upon the skill and practice of its pilots. I am told that this matter causes considerable concern to those who employ and train ex-R.A.F. personnel for civilian airlines and that the average monthly total of hours flown by R.A.F. pilots may be as little as 15. If that is so, it is a matter of considerable concern. If it is because of economy that the number of flying hours is being cut down, the House must probe it further and be given full and satisfactory answers.
My third point concerns the publication of the R.A.F. accident statistics—again an item on which I have had exchanges with the Government, as has the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), who is not present. Once again, indeed, in a debate on the Service Estimates, the Liberal Bench is unoccupied. The Minister of Defence for Administration told me on 19th February that he hoped to be in a position to make a statement in the near future. Last October, I was told by his hon. Friend that it was hoped to complete the review of the practice with regard to the publication of military aircraft accident statistics by the end of the year. We have not yet had a statement on the subject and this is to be regretted.
Such researches as I have been able to undertake suggest that we should take the subject very seriously. Dealing with only three types of aircraft—the Hunter, the Canberra and the Lightning—I am told that, in recent years, accidents in and around the United Kingdom—I exclude accidents overseas—totalled as follows: In 1963, there were 8; in 1964, again 8; in 1965, there were 4; in 1966, there were 8; in 1967, there were 10 and last year there were 6. That reaches a considerable total.
These statistics may or may not be accurate—I am in no position to judge— but they are the only information I have. The House should be given full and accurate information on the subject, as is recognised in a number of other countries. It would enable us to judge the operational capability of our air forces and to see whether there are some defects or shortcomings in training or operation which are placing aircrew at risk.
Secondly, and perhaps more important, we should have this information so that we may be assured that operational flying is not taking place in conditions which place the general public at risk. Unfortunately there are from time to time accidents in this country and there have been civilian casualties. There have been crashes by aircraft of other nations as well—for example, the French aircraft crash at Farnborough last year. From time to time there are crashes by American Air Force planes based in this country.
Why may we not have much greater information on this subject? Why may we not be taken into the confidence of the Government? Is there something here which they feel we should not know? This is a matter of which the House should be much better informed and on which, again, there is no justification for the Government to hide behind a smokescreen. If, for one reason or another, the Minister finds himself unable to cover these points, I ask that they be covered in next year's Defence White Paper because they are matters of continuing public concern and it is necessary that the House should have an adequate opportunity to probe and be satisfied about them.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Edwin Brooks: I hope that the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) will forgive me if I do not follow him on the specific points which he raised. Instead, I will launch into the major matter to which I want to refer.
Like other hon. Members who have spoken, notably my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley), I am disturbed about some of the estimating which has taken place in

the past and which appears to be taking place at present. I am concerned tonight to draw special attention to one or two ambiguities which appear to thwart any attempt to follow what is happening in aviation expenditure.
On pages 2 and 3 of the Estimates before us, there is an item, "Purchase of United States Aircraft", and some extraordinary figures are given under the headings "Gross" and "Repayments", showing apparent discrepancies of only £1,000 in all cases. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I have been privileged to learn something of the reasoning behind it, but I shall be surprised if hon. Members who do not serve on that Committee know what it means.
However, at the end of the summary, we see that it is accounted for by page 188, Ministry of Technology, and there we find an extraordinarily short item referring to large sums of money under the heading "Purchase of United States Aircraft (Net)". The figure for 1968–69 was £171 million, and for 1969–70 it is £90 million.
We are told on page 188:
In due course an Estimate will be presented to Parliament for the Ministry of Technology (Class IV, 21 and 22) for expenditure by the Ministry of Technology on the supply of equipment for Government Departments and other customers; and the purchase of United States aircraft and for research and development connected therewith.
I went to the Vote Office to inquire whether the due course had expired and the Estimate had been presented to clarify these sums. I discovered that it has not been presented so far.

Mr. Roy Roebuck: I expect it is confidential.

Mr. Brooks: It is not in the least confidential. It is available for last year and, I hope, will be for this year within a few days. I feel that my hon. Friend's intervention is unhelpful, but at least it assists me in revealing how ignorant of the situation many hon. Members are.

Mr. Roebuck: Had my hon. Friend been here last night, he would know to what I referred. Hon. Members were not allowed access to a document which was said to be "Confidential". My aside was meant to be humorous.

Mr. Brooks: I was here for as long as my hon. Friend—unless he stayed after midnight, that is—

Mr. Roebuck: I was awake.

Mr. Brooks: When one turns to page 185, where the expenditures of the Ministry of Technology are set out in more detail, one sees the heading "Vote 20 (Ministry of Technology) (Aerospace)" and the figure of £147,248,000. As it is impossible to clarify the breakdown of this, since the Civil Estimates have not yet been presented to Parliament, one might be forgiven for assuming this to be an unambiguous global sum. However, looking at the corresponding Civil Estimates for 1968–69, one finds on page 111 the heading "Ministry of Technology (Aerospace)", under which there is a similar tabulation to that on page 125 of the Defence Estimates, and the figure for "Research and Development: Work by Industry, etc." of £166,087,000, which is substantially different from the figure which I quoted just now.
Clearly, something very odd is happening here. It may be that, by going through the breakdown given in last year's Civil Estimates, it is possible to discover how some of the discrepancy has arisen. I do not pretend that there is anything mysterious or formidable about the problem, but the form in which these Estimates are presented to us, without having the simultaneous presentation of the Technology figures to show the basis of this global total, is a matter which we should criticise. We are dealing with extremely large sums, and it is important to know what is happening.
The final example I have time for this evening to illustrate the ambiguity of these figures was touched upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley. He pointed out, on page 155, relating to Vote 7 of the Defence Estimates, that there is a discrepancy of some £32,500,000 in the 1968–69 figures compared to 1969–70. If we look at page 154, we find that rather more than £32,500,000—£33,500,000—is explained by the discrepancy in one particular item, "Airframes &c", and this is further elaborated as "Airframes, airframe repairs and the occasional purchase of aircraft complete with engines and installed equipment."
In 1968–69, the figure was £39 million, and in 1969–70 it was £72,500,000. This is a difference of the order of two to one. I suspect that there may be a simple reason for this, but I would have thought it would have been helpful if, in presenting these Estimates with such a tremendous change in this one item, we had had a short footnote or something to illustrate how on earth this has arisen.
It would be possible to spend a great deal of time in dealing with the ambiguity involved in the presentation of these figures. I am not trying to be clever for the sake of it, but I do submit that the time has come when it is important, if we are to have a debate on the Defence Estimates which is meaningful, to look rather more carefully at the way these are presented and elaborated.
I have two final points to make in the form of extended questions. The first point is one which has increasingly concerned many members, not only of this House but no doubt of assemblies throughout the world, ever since the U-2 incident at the beginning of this decade. I am referring to the growing problem of the surveillance of our country, and indeed of the world, by satellites, some of which have been called—I think quite properly—spy satellites. They are capable of proceeding more or less at will above our country and capable of taking information of considerable detail and up-to-date accuracy.
A few days ago, the United States revealed that a large Soviet rocket is on the launching pad ready, presumably, to land a complicated apparatus on the Moon, and we have a detailed exposition of how it is possible to do this from photographic evidence. If that sort of military information is available, clearly there are virtually no secrets left.
This raises another point, to some extent a point of law, which perhaps should not therefore be addressed to my right hon. Friends tonight but which should be addressed to someone. Increasingly in recent months we have heard reports of various countries prepared to ban overflights by supersonic planes. It seems interesting to speculate at what point a country's airspace terminates. Concorde will be flying in its supersonic configuration at some 60,000 feet—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is right. It is not a matter for the debate today.

Mr. Brooks: With respect, I am trying to make the point that if we are talking about the safety of this country's airspace, it is important to know what the dangers are that face us, and what protective devices we have, or should have. I cannot accept without further elaboration that this is in any way out of order.
We have spent a great deal of time in this debate, not least because speakers have given us the benefit of their wisdom at length, but I would go on to make a further point about the four-minute warning. At Fylingdales and other stations there are various systems, presumably to give advance warning of rockets launched from the ground which will be identified at certain points of their trajectory. We are now hearing of orbiting bombs which I should have thought present a quite new order of difficulty for this type of early warning system. Again I should be interested to know what response, if any, is possible against this sort of very serious threat.
This brings me to my final point. In the United States, and doubtless in the Soviet Union, thought has been given to possible protection against this type of attack and against the more traditional type of inter-continental ballistic missile. I refer to the Sentinel system upon which the President of the United States has recently made a most important announcement. I am not sure how far this has been taken in consultation with the N.A.T.O. allies. I suspect that we shall have pressures, as the years go by, to make this relatively light scatter much denser across the United States, if only because the Chinese ballistic strength will increase. Therefore, it is most important that we and our N.A.T.O. allies should have the fullest possible discussion with the United States over the wisdom or otherwise of the military implications of a decision of such magnitude.
I am sorry to have spoken so hurriedly. I feel that we are entering a period of more technological sophistication and it is important that we should be one or two steps ahead of those who are thinking along these lines elsewhere.

11.26 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: In the past, my constituents have had many reasons to be grateful to the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym). They will be all the more grateful to him tonight in his capacity as a usual channel in having made it possible for me to raise certain points on their behalf.
I should like to put my points briefly and basically in the form of questions.
The first two concern Transport Command. First, has the Belfast aircraft, which I had the pleasure of seeing in some detail both in Cyprus and in the Persian Gulf, been entirely satisfactory in operational service? If so, why is there a type, to which the pilots refer as the "fast back", flying at a considerably lower speed than was intended at the point of manufacture? Can the Minister say that the teething troubles, if that is what they were, with the Belfast aircraft have now been satisfactorily ironed out?
Secondly, concerning Transport Command, we have been told of the need and the intention to continue to fly our troops to the Far East. At present the airstrip at Bahrein is used. Can the Minister say how we shall manage to perform these operations when, as is intended, Bahrein is abandoned?
I now turn to two strategic matters. First, can the Minister say whether it is or is not the view of the Government that the Soviet Navy in the Mediterranean could be sunk by air power within a matter of hours? I should like a clear answer to that question. I have recently done a tour of the Mediterranean for the W.E.U. and I had the pleasure of talking to a number of N.A.T.O. admirals. I have also recently put some questions to senior officials in the United States. None of these people agree with the British Minister who claimed that the Soviet Navy in the Mediterranean could be sunk in a matter of hours because, for one reason above all else, we do not know where all its submarines are.
The second strategic question concerns the statement by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins). He said that we might as well forget all about defence, because the offensive ballistic missile has pretty well ruled that out.
I have had the pleasure of discussing the A.B.M. system in the United States in some detail. The hon. Member for Bebington (Mr. Brooks) is right in saying that President Nixon's decision is perhaps the biggest single decision that has been taken in matters of defence in a decade. It is of crucial importance, and it is a great tragedy that we are not able to discuss it in the House of Commons. Nevertheless, I believe that defence can be credibly established by the combination of the Sprint and Spartan missiles and by the perimeter acquisition radar. I do not want to go into detail. Has the matter of effective anti-ballistic missile defence been considered by the Government? Has it been discussed in any detail with the United States? I hope that the Minister will deal with those questions.
I suppose that Suffolk has one of the greatest concentrations of air power in this country. We have the three American bases at Mildenhall, Laken-heath, and Wethersfield, and the three substantial Royal Air Forces bases at Stradishall, Honington, and Wattisham. I am concerned only with Stradishall and Honington, and I start with the latter.
Honington is an excellent base which has had a chequered history. First it was to have the F 111s, then it was not to have them, then it was to have some of the F 111s. I was given personal assurances, in writing and by word of mouth, that even though the Press was saying that the F 111s would be cancelled I could tell my constituents and local authorities that this was all hot air, that the Government in the person of the Minister of Defence had personally guaranteed that they would come. Of course we know that they did not come. In the process of this in and out of Honington the local authorities and the local population were put to great difficulties, and indeed so was I.
I am glad to say to the Minister that now that the whole of the Buccaneer force is to come to Honington we are delighted. The presence of the R.A.F. at Honington is something that gives us great pride, and I should like to say to the Minister, with whom I have had correspondence on this matter, that we are very pleased indeed. When is this base to be opened for operational purposes?

Is there likely to be sufficient housing there? Will there be adequate transport, particularly for the married families to get into and out of the nearby towns? What is the Minister doing about noise control?
My last point concerns Stradishall, another excellent base, but sadly it is to be closed when the R.A.F. air navigational training facilities are consolidated elsewhere. I observe that the Minister is taking no notice. I do not know why I am asking these questions, but my constituents at least are concerned. When is the rundown to start? What is to happen to the unestablished personnel who will be discharged? There are 125 unestablished personnel, and 45 established. What facilities will be provided by the Ministry of Defence, or by the Ministry of Productivity and Unemployment, or whatever it is called, in view of the fact that in the neighbouring town of Haverhill there are few jobs available at the present time? What do the Government intend to do about helping these redundant personnel to find alternative employment?
I wish that it had not been necessary to put a number of complex points in this rather staccato fashion, but I am sure that the Minister will understand that it was not the product of any discourtesy on my part, but rather an intention to deal briefly with a large number of subjects.

11.33 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I have attended many dull and dreary debates in this House during the last 20 years, but this is about the dullest and dreariest of the lot. I think that some responsibility for this must rest with the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield), because he is the best sleeping pill and sleeping draught that I have ever known. It takes a long time for the House to recover from his orations.
We are very lucky this evening to have more time to debate the Air Force than we had to debate the other two Services. This is due to a procedural accident. If the Opposition had not come forward with a Motion of censure this afternoon, I suppose we would have had to conclude our debate at ten o'clock, and the Royal Air Force would have had two hours less in which to discuss its affairs.

Hon. Members: Why?

Mr. Hughes: Because we would have had to adopt the procedure which operated in respect of the debates on the other two Services.
I appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the House to protect their interests and to see that Estimates are not rushed through as on this occasion. If this process goes on, I should not be surprised if the House of Commons were soon asked to pass huge Estimates on the nod.
We are here spending £563 million, and that is far more important than the House of Lords, and yet we are doing so with only a small number of hon. Members present, largely because hon. Members who have often contributed important technical speeches on these subjects have become "browned off" through being unable to get into these debates. I hope that the House will revolt against the Government's attempt to rush through these enormous sums without adequate discussion.
What is the Royal Air Force for? In the midst of a maze of technicalities, I have been trying to find out why we need to spend this exceedingly large sum on the R.A.F. I am still mystified. This afternoon the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs explained the circumstances in which the Government would be prepared to use armed force. Presumably, the R.A.F. has been engaged in the latest operation in the Caribbean. It appears to have taken troops to the island of Antigua and then to have dropped leaflets, a harmless and inspiring exercise. I do not know whether the R.A.F. or the Foreign Office has had to pay for the leaflets.
When the Foreign Secretary was asked this afternoon how force would be used in other circumstances, such as in Rhodesia, he said that force would be used only in circumstances when it would not create a great deal of human misery. That is a new definition and a new outlook. If this goes on, the Foreign Secretary will soon be trying to expound the sort of pacifist ideas which I have been trying to explain for a number of years. If the R.A.F. is not to be used in circumstances when it would create greater misery, or more evil or cruelty in the world, I do not see how there can be war.
What are the kinds of wars in which the R.A.F. is likely to be engaged in the

foreseeable future? Let us consider the R.A.F. in the light of the statement of the Minister of Defence. We are now told that the conventional forces of potential enemies are so large that if a conventional war broke out, we would have to retort by the use of nuclear weapons. Presumably, that means using the R.A.F., unless it means using Polaris which it would be out of order to discuss in this debate. What would be the rôle of the R.A.F. in the event of the Government of the day deciding to use nuclear weapons to meet a conventional attack?
I recall hearing the Prime Minister telling a meeting of women in Glasgow that Britain would never be the first to use nuclear weapons and that we would not press the button first. I do not know how such weapons could be used without the button being pressed or without the necessary signal being passed to the R.A.F. How does my right hon. Friend's pledge square with the doctrine elaborated by the Secretary of State for Defence at Munich? No wonder Lord Wigg affectionately described the Secretary of State as "Suicide Healey". If we are not to use nuclear weapons or, alternatively, if we are committed to a policy of suicide, I cannot envisage how this great number of aeroplanes about which we are speaking will defend the population of this country.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is it possible that the Prime Minister was thinking of the excuse given by the young lady who had an illegitimate baby and said, "It is only a little one"? Perhaps the Prime Minister was thinking only of little nuclear weapons.

Mr. Hughes: If I start talking about illegitimate babies I will soon be called to order. Perhaps my hon. Friend will raise that matter when we are debating the Ministry of Health.
Why do we need all these aircraft? Will they take part in a European conflict? My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Robert Howarth) spoke of the massive air power of the Soviet Union. Russia has, under Communism, developed amazing air strength, which is not my idea of what Communism should be doing. Hon. Members who have travelled across Siberia to Japan in large aeroplanes which use virtually the same


engines as bombers appreciate the tremendous destructive power of the Soviet Air Force. But are we being asked to enter an arms race with the Soviet Union? We boast about the Concorde, but Russia is technologically ahead of us even there.
On the other side is America, with its enormous destructive air power. President Nixon has been talking about anti-ballistic defence systems. We talk in terms of millions of £s. They talk in billions. To enter an arms race with the United States or try to compete with Russia would beggar us and eventually bankrupt us.
Hon. Members talk about conventional defence of shipping. One word we have not heard in this debate is "rocket". Hon. Members do not realise the tremendous technical developments in delivering atomatic weapons by rockets. Russia and America have developed a technique for taking rockets to the Moon. If they can take them to the Moon, to Venus or Mars, they could drop enough hydrogen bombs in a couple of minutes on this country to destroy it. Yet we are talking about the Air Force as if it is relevant to the situation developing in the world and which will develop much more in the next decade.
We are wasting a large amount of money. Instead of reducing this Vote by 1,000 men, which is the traditional approach, we should reduce it by £500 million and put that £500 million into civil aircraft. Then we could have a civil aircraft industry. Instead we are taking away the resources and energies of the country and putting them into an air force which, if it is not obsolete now, will certainly be obsolete during the next decade. I appeal for a little realism in these debates. I do not see why we should go on spending £2,000 million every year without looking at what is happening in the world.
When we were in Opposition we moved votes of censure on the Government. I remember the last one in which we said that £20,000 million had been wasted in different kinds of aircraft in the previous 13 or 14 years. The same process is going on now, perhaps at a slightly reduced rate. We are still putting these enormous sums of money into buying American aircraft and into manufacturing aircraft of our own. I do not see how this House can get enthusiastic

about spending this money one week and then complain about balance of payments when we come to the Budget. When the Government said we were to abolish TSR2 I thought that we were on the road to regaining our sanity, but instead we are spending our money on American aircraft. It is still a bit of a mystery, but it means spending large sums of money.
Every year I make my protest. If anyone survives another war and reads this debate, they will see that my hon. Friend and I have taken the proper line in making an emphatic protest.

11.49 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Hastings: I want, first, to apologise to the House and to the Minister for having arrived late this evening during the course of the debate, through circumstances beyond my control. If in the course of my speech I touch on anything which has been fully covered already, I will immediately accept from the Minister any recommendation that I should pass on, because I know how irritating repetition can be, particularly late at night.
The speech just delivered by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) deserves attention. In these debates which take place year by year, we are always indebted to him for the light that he throws upon our problems. He is the Don Quixote of defence in the House of Commons. Every year, in one debate or another, he mounts his ancient horse, lowers his lance, and charges at everything—bows and arrows, the A.F.V.G., the TSR2, or whatever the most modern defence equipment may be. The hon. Gentleman does it with absolute conviction. We always respect him for that.
The hon. Gentleman admitted frankly that pacificism was his creed and that this was the reason for his mounting his horse every year. It is, perhaps, not unfair to suggest that, boiling the hon. Gentleman's views down to their essence, he believes that all defence and all concepts of war are reprehensible and wrong —who would deny this; nevertheless, some of us would say that war is inevitable in some degree in this wicked world; the hon. Gentleman says, "No"—but that, if it has to be, it is better the equipment is in the hands of the Soviet Union than in our hands.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Nonsense.

Mr. Hastings: This is my interpretation of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Therefore, he argues, if defeat has to be, because this implies victory or defeat, it would be better that we should be defeated than that the Soviet Union should be. This is where the hon. Gentleman is hoist on his windmill as the years pass. The hon. Gentleman complained that the R.A.F. was engaged in this tremendous operation on which the Government have embarked in Anguilla and was dropping leaflets. I had not heard about this. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs spared us this desperate news this afternoon.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has misrepresented my argument. I am as much against the Soviet Union spending colossal sums on so-called defence as I am against our spending colossal sums on it. I say it is leading to suicide. I want neither the Soviet Union nor the West to commit suicide.

Mr. Hastings: I entirely accept that. But there is a gradation of opinion in the hon. Gentleman's head; having listened to him diligently during the several years I have been here I would say that that was it.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: No.

Mr. Hastings: Yes. It is exactly what he has said this evening, as right hon. and hon. Members, at any rate those on this side, will testify to. The hon. Gentleman asks: why should we presume to compete with the Soviet Union, since from his journeys through Siberia or wherever it be he thinks that their power is unassailable; if there has to be a balance of victory or defeat, it had better be in favour of the Soviet Union. Anybody who has listened to the hon. Gentleman throughout the years will agree with my interpretation of his attitude.
I turn from the hon. Gentleman's interesting speech to two fairly narrow points which I wish to put to the Minister. The first concerns the question of the multi-rôle combat aircraft. The second concerns the question of helicopters. It will be no news to the Minister that, since the present Government came to power, I have done my best to explain why of the various shortcomings

of their policies over the years what they have done in defence aviation has been perhaps as damaging to Britain as anything at all.
I do not want in any way to embark upon the general point tonight. I merely remind the Minister that there is only one project on the drawing boards in Britain today which matters at all in defence aviation—that is the M.R.C.A. There is nothing else. This is an international project. It is going reasonably well, I understand. There are two versions—the two-seat and the one-seat. If it is to be the two-seat, then the design leadership rests at Preston. If it is the one-seat, it goes to Germany. The commonality between the two is something which can be worked out and, given an international company to direct the affair —as, for instance, Sepicat in the case of the Jaguar—things could go well. There are four companies involved—B.A.C., Fiat, Fokker, and Messersmicht Bolkow.
There are two questions on this subject which are of critical importance. We have heard that the whole of Britain's defence aviation in the future rested on the word of the Secretary of State for Defence upon the A.F.V.G.—and down it went Now we have only this one. In the industry and in the R.A.F. this is of principal and categoric importance.
Can the Minister satisfy us on these two points? First, what about the engine? The engine can only be, I think, either a Rolls-Royce concept or a Pratt and Whitney concept. In the case of either alternative, we are talking about paper work and no more. There is no hardware, there is nothing on the bench. They are theories at this stage. Doubtless Pratt and Whitney would represent that their work is further advanced, and Rolls-Royce would deny this.
We are permanently in a dilemma about this as long as we are stuck with the Plowden concept of the inevitability of international co-operation. If the countries and firms concerned accept a British engine, they will ipso facto insist upon design leadership on the airframe. Rolls-Royce, however, depends for its existence and its future upon the existence and the prosperity of a British airframe industry.
How will the Government work this out? Is not this at the base of the falsity, possibly, of the whole concept of


international collaboration? I am not questioning the M.R.C.A. It may be inevitable. I hope that it succeeds, but let us at least be aware of the limitations of the whole idea and of the disastrous advice which that Plowden Committee gave us a year or two back. That is the first point on the M.R.C.A.
Second, what are the French up to? Their greed is amazing. Their aim and their belief is that they can establish a European dominance in airframe design. That is what they are after. We have learned our lesson a time or two. The A.F.V.G., the cornerstone of British defence aviation, as the Secretary of State described it—

Mr. Wall: The core.

Mr. Hastings: I beg his pardon.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Core, as of an apple.

Mr. Hastings: My right hon. Friend is, of course, quite right.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: The core, to be thrown away.

Mr. Hastings: Down it went. I and a number of my hon. Friends warned that that would happen, because some of us are connected with the industry and we knew what Dassault was up to. We knew that the Mirage 3G was on the stocks. "No", said the Secretary of State, "not at all." The Minister said that any suggestion that such a thing could happen was ridiculous. But, of course, it did. The A.F.V.G. was cancelled "for financial reasons," said the French Government, and three or four weeks afterwards up came Dassault with the Mirage 3G. Since then, and at this hour, the French are indisputably busy in Bonn advancing the Mirage 3G as an alternative to the M.R.C.A. That is undeniable.
It may be that our German friends in Messerschmidt and the German Government say that such talk is idle and that the French cannot expect to have any success in their permanent attempts to prise the German aircraft industry away from any connection with this country unless they produce orders for this aircraft which would make it worth while. That would seem to me to be an entirely acceptable proposition and likely to be true.
There are, however, rumours, and the Minister will surely not be unaware of them, that perhaps the French may be making headway here. I would welcome any news that the hon. Gentleman can give tonight as to whether this vital project for the British aircraft industry is as firm as we have every right to hope that it may be.
I turn to the second of the two points which I wish to raise with him, I feel in a sense that I should apologise to the Minister, because I base this on no more than rumour and hearsay, but there is always a good deal of hearsay and rumour going round in an industry as alive and as far-ranging in its implications as our aircraft industry. It is also a matter of history that a number of the rumours which have circulated over recent years have turned out to be nearer the truth than fiction.
The premise is this. Of the various new concepts in aviation, one of the most important over recent years—and it has emerged from practice in Vietnam—is that of the gunship or the armed helicopter. Is it not a fact that, for a long time now, this idea has been going the rounds in Whitehall, and there has been a fairly extensive disagreement between the Army and the R.A.F. about who should arm helicopters designed, for instance, for tank busting or attack from air? Air cavalry the Americans call it— an evocative and descriptive phrase.
I understand that the argument has now been settled, and it will be the business of the Army to arm helicopters for tank busting. If that is right, we are in the game in terms of our own defence—I give credit to the Government for having taken an important decision—and we are also in the market on a world scale for weapons of high sophistication, and with little competition, save from the United States.
The rumour is that, having arrived at this point, the Army is, naturally, in a hurry to arm the helicopters. What weapon should be used? There is a choice of two. I ask the Minister to pay particular attention to this part of my speech. From what I know of the position, I take it that either we buy the French SS11 or we use Swingfire. The difference between the two is clear. Nord-Aviation absolutely depend on the order. It would, I should imagine, reduce the


price to peanuts to sell the SS11. It is immensely important to that company. But it so happens that the SS11 is obsolescent.
On the British side, Swingfire might or might not cost a little more. I question whether it would be delivered slower than the French weapon. I do not think that there would be trouble there. And it is a second-generation weapon, infinitely more efficacious, with a two to one cost-efficiency advantage over the French and with a guidance system which is so much better that it is not in the same league.
I am not talking in a nationalistic way about choosing British rather than French. I am talking about a potential market for a new arm, which the Americans have certainly proved in action, and which we are in a good position to furnish worldwide. For heaven's sake, let us not make a mistake here.
For nearly five years now, we have suffered such a lot in defence matters under this Government. I say at once that I am not making this as a personal attack upon the Minister or his hon. and right hon. Friends who have been on the Front Bench this evening. Most of the disasters we have suffered over defence equipment in this country as a result of this Government's decisions predate the appointments of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. I do not make a personal attack, but what I do say is that it will be decades before we get over what we have done to the aircraft industry and the country's capability to defend itself in terms of air defence.
Having reached this stage, let Ministers make no mistake of the kind I have foreshadowed. I have put two matters to them tonight: first, the only project—alas, an international one and not our own—which is potentially on our drawing boards, the multi-rôle combat aircraft; second, there is the concept of the armed helicopter. Let them get it right. I hope that we shall have some explanation from the Minister on the two matters which I have put to him.

12.5 a.m.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: I share one thought with the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), and that is one of regret that those who

take part in this debate seem to be under some pressure because of the rather heavy overloading of the Government's programme today.
However, having said that, may I congratulate the Minister on having presented this first set of Air Estimates and, having done so, say that, like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wembley, North (Sir E. Bullus), this is the first time that I have taken part in a debate on the Air Estimates in which there has been no Minister responsible for the Royal Air Force here to answer the questions which have been asked. It is not the Minister's fault, but I think it is unsatisfactory that it should be so, and I hope that the Prime Minister will not make a habit of appointing to the various Ministerial posts noble Lords, however worthy or good, who sit in another place. We have to debate these matters in detail in this House and it is not fair to the Minister of Defence for Equipment that he should be expected to know so much detail about the R.A.F. as a Minister responsible for that Service would have in his own mind.
We have to look at the rôle of the Royal Air Force, as with the other Services, in the context of the overall policy outlined in the Statement on Defence. This seems to be broadly that we are aiming at greater flexibility—that is to say, less dependence on nuclear weapons and a greater dependence upon conventional weapons. The R.A.F. has carried the nuclear burden with honour for some years now, and it is to hand the task over entirely to the Royal Navy when the third Polaris submarine becomes operational some time this year. When this happens, the Vulcans of Strike Command will then be transferred to a tactical rôle.
What I should like to know, like my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), is what is the R.A.F. to do for a long-range strike reconnaissance aircraft after 1970 when the Canberras have finally disappeared from the scene? If we are to rely more upon conventional weapons than on nuclear weapons, clearly the tactical strike reconnaissance rôle becomes more important and not less. It will be remembered that the TSR2 was to have filled this rôle up till the moment when it was cancelled by the then Chancellor in his 1965 Budget speech.
However, this having gone, the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft was to replace the cancelled TSR2 and this was to be in service by the mid-1970s. The gap between 1970 and the mid-1970s was to be filled by the Vulcans supplemented by the F111 as a spearhead type of aircraft. But the F111, as the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force pointed out at the time in the Air Estimates debate in 1967, was to have a "vast radius of action", to quote his words—far longer than the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft —and the need for it was not confined to the area east of Suez. Indeed, we were to have two-thirds of the force stationed in the United Kingdom.
He said:
… the principal rôles of the F111 aircraft will be tactical and particularly reconnaissance to support our forces in any military operations and to discharge our responsibilities to our allies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1967; Vol. 743, c. 247.]
He said that the F111 would fulfill its rôle long after the AFVG comes into service. But the AFVG was abandoned and the F111 was cancelled.
What is the R.A.F. to do now for tactical strike and reconnaissance? We are told that discussions are taking place— and these have been referred to by my hon. Friends—with Germany, Italy and the Netherlands about producing a multi-rôle combat aircraft. We hope these negotiations will be successful. But this aircraft is not likely to be ready by the mid-1970s even if agreement is reached. Indeed, the Government have acknowledged this. Whilst the Supplementary Statement on Defence of 1968 spoke of having it in the mid-1970s, the Secretary of State, in presenting the Statement, said on 25th July last year:
The major problem remaining for the R.A.F. is to introduce a new combat aircraft for service in the middle or late 1970s when V-bombers and Bucaneers are no longer adequate for the task."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th July, 1968; Vol. 769, c. 1013.]
Already we see that the multi-rôle combat aircraft is slipping, as the AFVG slipped before it finally disappeared. Are the Vulcans expected to continue until the late 1970s? I suspect not. But even if they are, they require supplementing by the F111, according to the Under-Secretary of State for Defence

for the Royal Air Force at that time. He said, in the Air Estimates debate in 1968,
The V-force, due to operate in the tactical rôle, could not fill the gap unless it was bracketed with a spearhead type of aircraft— the F111—the Vulcan remaining, to the mid-1970s.
He went on to say that the cancellation of the F111 created "a serious gap". Indeed, he added, as well he might,
The whole question is very difficult".
As reported in column 787, in reference to the Buccaneer Mark II, he said,
I am advised that this aircraft is not in the same class as the F111.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1968; Vol. 760, c. 786–87.]
We had the Minister telling us on 4th March that the Buccaneers
will form the backbone of the R.A.F.
I suspect the word "backbone" after what has happened—
strike reconnaissance, both here and in Germany in the next few years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1969; Vol. 779, c. 353.]
The R.A.F. is to be given as the backbone of its strike reconnaissance force an aircraft considered to be inadequate only a year ago by the Minister responsible for the R.A.F. at that time, an aircraft inferior in class to that required.
Speaking in the Air Estimates Debate two years ago, the then Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force justified the proposed purchase of the F111 in these words:
Although we do not plan to indulge in major operations without the co-operation of allies, this does not absolve us from the responsibility of maintaining a balanced force capable of making a contribution which those allies would value, nor indeed from the responsibility for providing our own forces of all three Services with strike reconnaissance support."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1967; Vol. 743, c. 245–46.]
What has happened in the last two years to render that statement invalid? If that were true two years ago, why are we now told that the R.A.F. is to make do with the Vulcans and the Buccaneers? The hon. Member told us two weeks ago that
qualitatively, our new European posture will make relatively little difference to the content of our equipment programme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1969; Vol. 779, c. 350.]
We therefore know that the change back to Europe has not affected this decision about what the R.A.F. needed. I hope that in his winding up speech he will


spell our in careful detail the defence reasoning behind this volte face and will also tell us what changes in the rôle of the R.A.F. have been made to take account of this downgrading of a vital operational requirement.
I hope that he will also tell us what plans he has for equipping the R.A.F. with a new strike reconnaissance aircraft in the late 1970s should the present negotiations with Germany, Italy and the Netherlands collapse. Is he prepared to give the British aircraft industry, as my hon. Friends have suggested, a chance to build an aircraft to meet the R.A.F.'s needs, or will he buy in France or America? The lesson of the Harrier is that if this country produces a good aircraft there is always a market for it, and for that not to be remembered now would be a tragic event. One point is certain: we cannot go on indefinitely allowing this requirement to be filled by stop-gap second-best aircraft.
We are worried not only about the types of aircraft but also about the numbers. I should like the Minister to answer a question about the number of aircraft in R.A.F. Germany. In an intervention on 5th March my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) asked the Minister of Defence for Administration what were the aircraft figures to support B.A.O.R. at tactical strength in 1964 and what they are today. The right hon. Gentleman merely said,
The aircraft are still there, and in the United Kingdom, as they have been in the past".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March 1969; Vol. 779, c. 455.]
That was a very convenient way of not answering the question.

Mr. Reynolds: The correct way of answering it.

Mr. Goodhew: The reason the right hon. Gentleman did not give us the answer is that he knows, as I have no doubt the Russians also know, that there has been a drastic reduction in the number of aircraft in R.A.F. Germany over the past two years. It is absurd that we in the House should not be told when this must be perfectly well known to the Russians and everybody else.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: It is not the Russians that the Government are trying to keep it from—it is our allies.

Mr. Goodhew: One sometimes wonders how the present Government are dealing with defence.
It is very difficult for hon. Members to obtain detailed information about squadrons and aircraft. For some unknown reason the Defence White Paper supplies us with a list of the Royal Navy's fleet of ships so that we may judge the Government's performance in running them down to a dangerously low level, but apparently when it comes to the R.A.F. we are not allowed to know. We must scratch about in all sorts of places picking up bits and pieces to try to put the jigsaw puzzle together, and when we have done this there is no chance of our ever confirming whether the picture we have built up is accurate.
One thing that is certain is that the number of front-line aircraft in the R.A.F. today is probably well below 500. That is about a quarter of the R.A.F.'s strength at the outbreak of war in 1939 and about one-twentieth of its strength in 1945. One is bound to ask whether the Government appreciate the indispensable rôle of air cover in all military and naval operations, quite apart from the need for air reconnaissance, strike and defence capabilities.
We should also ask whether the number of aircraft is to increase with a renewal of the accent on conventional as opposed to nuclear weapons. One aircraft carrying a nuclear weapon can knock out an airfield quite simply, but when conventional weapons are used two squadrons are probably needed to do the same job. Has account been taken of this by the Secretary of State for Defence in his present plans?
The White Paper tells us many things. I should like to comment on a number, but I shall try to be brief, as I know we are under pressure.
One thing that disturbs me is the idea that suddenly we have to have graduate entry for the R.A.F., that we cannot have direct entry except from university graduates, though I know that the Supplementary List is for non-graduates. This is rather worrying. The Minister said that the university authorities are enthusiastic. Of course, they would be. That is natural. They would like to be providing the officers, pilots and so on for the R.A.F. But it is sad to see the Cranwell cadet depart from the scene.


I am sure that no one on either side of the House would wish to let this moment pass without mentioning the great record the cadets from Cranwell have had in the Air Force. I have no doubt that Cranwell's traditions will be carried on when it continues as an officers' training school.
The shortage of commissioned entrants to the Engineers' Branch has been with us for some time. What is being done about it? This is a particularly sensitive area in which to be short.
Looking through the figures for both commissioned entrants and airmen, one finds very disturbing shortages. Is this just the result of the uncertainties of the continuing defence review, or is not the now infamous decision to transfer the responsibility for Service pay from the Grigg Committee to the Prices and Incomes Board responsible for much of this uncertainty and unhappiness?

Mr. Reynolds: One of the problems was that they were all told 10 years ago that the manned aircraft was finished.

Mr. Goodhew: I do not see what relevance that has to the Grigg Committee and the Prices and Incomes Board. I know that the right hon. Gentleman worries about this problem. In particular, I hope he is worried about the Medical Branch. May we have figures of the number of doctors in the R.A.F. and what the shortfall is? This is glossed over in the White Paper. The reason, of course, is that we have a situation in which Service doctors who should have been kept 15 per cent. ahead of the pay of general practitioners have been allowed to get about 34 per cent. behind, and the Government seem content to leave it that way. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has talked to the B.M.A., which refused to take advertisements for the B.M.A. Journal because it could not recommend its members to undertake Service careers.

Mr. Reynolds: The B.M.A. for two years refused to talk to me, but I have talked to it recently.

Mr. Goodhew: That is encouraging. Perhaps the B.M.A. was disturbed by what the right hon. Gentleman had done. I am glad that he has been able to persuade it to talk to him again.

I shall skip great chunks of my speech —[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]— although I can always use them if hon. Members wish—and will merely say, therefore, that the manpower shortages in the R.A.F. are particularly disturbing in the light of the slip which is included in the fine recruiting pamphlet—from which, I notice, sadly, one or two photographs of aircraft have been removed—and in which we are told by the Director-General of the Royal Air Force Manning that half the men in the R.A.F. now are due to leave by 1973. If that is so, I do not know how hon. Members opposite can sit there laughting as they do this evening. They should be a great deal more concerned than they appear to be.
We have constantly criticised the Government and the Secretary of State in particular for the continuing uncertainty they have created over the past four years for those serving the country in the Armed Forces. We have warned the Secretary of State again and again of the likely effect of this not only on those already serving but on those who might otherwise decide to serve. We welcome the Government's belated recognition of the validity of our warnings, which, at the time, they rejected, and we hope they will now recognise the equally damaging effect of the delays imposed by the reference to the Prices and Incomes Board.
The country owes a great debt of gratitude to the men and women of the Royal Air Force for their fine devotion to duty It may sometimes appear to them that this is taken for granted. I am sure that is not so in this House and we on this side wish to place on record tonight our personal gratitude for all that they do.

12.23 a.m.

Mr. John Morris: We have had an interesting debate. I shall not detain the House unduly at this late hour. I shall follow the example of the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) in that he laid on one side large chunks of his speech in fairness to the House at this hour. If I have to be highly selective in the points to which I reply now, I will write to those hon. Members who have raised matters with which I have no time to deal tonight.
There was a certain air of innocence in the hon. Member's remarks just before he sat down when he complained that the


House was not allowed to know certain details about figures and numbers. There has been no change in practice under this Government from what the Conservative Government did in regard to numbers, ranges and specifications. If he was not aware of this, I have enlightened him now, so perhaps he need no longer give a picture of injured innocence.
We had a comprehensive speech from the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield). I thought at times that it was rather gloomy. When I interrupted him it was in order to indicate that perhaps he should give a rather more balanced picture in discussing the various aircraft projects and the success which had been achieved in collaboration over a period of years. I thought at one stage that there was a measure of inconsistency in what he said about collaboration. In the case of the Jaguar, for example, we have had a successful collaborative venture. We hear little about it, perhaps because of its success and the variants which are in process of being produced.

Mr. Corfield: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recognise that it is very much easier to co-operate with one other country, as opposed to three, and he must admit that there is a bigger difference of opinion between us and the Germans as to what is wanted than there was between us and the French.

Mr. Morris: I agree that there is in creased difficulty when there are more than two partners, but one can also discuss the collaboration which is taking place on helicopters—

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman seems to be under the impression that we are up against some sort of time schedule. Is this debate to be concluded for some procedural reason, or is the hon. Gentleman at liberty to answer the points which have been raised without shortening his speech for some procedural reason?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): At 10 o'clock, the House suspended the Standing Order.

Mr. Morris: The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) has not been with us for all or, indeed, any part

of the debate. I thought, in much the same way as the hon. Member for St. Albans, that, as a matter of courtesy, it would be intolerable to detain the House unduly at this late hour. It was in that spirit that I made my opening remarks. However, we have noted the hon. Gentleman's contribution to the debate.
The first point raised by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South concerned the Harrier. As he knows, the order for the additional 20 aircraft was announced in November, 1968, as part of our intention to increase our contribution to SACEUR following the Czech crisis.
The Harrier is the first V/STOL aircraft to reach squadron service, and we cannot extol its virtues too highly. It represents a completely new concept of military aviation capabilities, to complement our close-support squadrons of conventional aircraft.
Over the next year or so, our aim will be to explore and exploit the operational advantages of this new capability and so identify the technical and logistic problems of operating it from dispersed bases in the field. The extra power expected from the uprating of the Pegasus engine will permit the Air Force to assess the possibilities of operating the Harrier from the decks of naval vessels as well as from land bases in the way that I outlined in my speech in the Defence debate. The outcome of this experience will show whether it would be right to put more of our effort into V/STOL capabilities, perhaps in the form of more Harriers, or whether the present balance of our air forces should be maintained.
Meanwhile, there is great overseas interest in the Harrier, especially with the advantages of the uprated engine, which is a very different kind of animal. It would be premature, however, to deal with any country or any buyer with whom we might be able to make some contract.
The M.R.C.A. has been raised by a large number of hon. Members, and here I deal briefly with the issue of collaboration. The experience of the last few years has emphasised the dangers of embarking on large advanced military aircraft development projects on our own. That is why we are trying to launch joint projects on a collaborative


basis, a number of them in collaboration with our European allies.
Collaboration is not easy at any stage, but it cannot get oft the ground without basic agreement on operational requirements. This, in turn, inevitably involves compromises amongst air forces; for instance, approaching operational problems from differing national standpoints. This is exactly what is happening with the M.R.C.A., the project for a future N.A.T.O combat aircraft which we are discussing with the German, Dutch and Italian Governments. We are now in the final stages of a feasibility study aimed at meeting the aircraft needs of all the participating countries from one basic aircraft design, and it is very worth while spending a good deal of time and effort on this vital initial stage.
It is now very likely that this can be achieved with a degree of commonality amounting to some 80 per cent. It is, however, a feature of the project that it will be able to accommodate each country's particular requirements with regard —particularly in the case of the R.A.F. —to avionics, terrain-following radar, and all-weather capability. Our hopes in this field are now concentrated on the M.R.C.A. project. It would be inconsistent with this type of collaboration to pursue a purely national project or the prospect of collaboration with some other country.

Mr. Dalyell: Some of us are still very curious why there should be different operational requirements between countries for M.R.C.A. in the first place, as between ourselves and Germany. This was the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley). Are not staffs prone to be too fussy, and cannot we have more than 80 per cent. commonality?

Mr. Morris: This is a difficult point for me to elaborate at this juncture. The various air staffs have been in the course of prolonged discussions which I have followed closely in the last few months. All I am trying to say is this—when the partners geographically are not exactly in the same position as to the potential use of the aircraft, the philosophy of the countries cannot be exactly the same. What we are trying to achieve is a high

degree of commonality between the different approaches of the different countries.
I am sure the hon. Member will agree with me on reflection that while these discussions are taking place, and we have the hopes which I have set out today, it would not be useful for me to elaborate any further. What we are trying to achieve is the greatest commonality possible.
The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) asked a number of questions on the engine. All the studies have so far been carried out on the basis of a Rolls-Royce design, but the actual choice of engine will be a separate decision. All the members of the consortium want the best engine at the cheapest price, and of course we hope a British engine will be chosen. But other possible designs will also have to be considered on an objective basis. These, I hope, will be studied in the very near future.
We have heard some newspaper comment on this, but there is no truth at all in the suggestion that there is, I quote, "a plan to equip the Royal Air Force with the Mirage G".
The French are not at present a member of the M.R.C.A. consortium, and it is this consortium which is at present providing the focus for co-operation on a future European combat aircraft.

Mr. Hastings: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves this point, can he tell us anything about the extent of the offers which the French at this moment are making to the Germans over the Mirage G, and their attempts to take them out of this arrangement over the M.R.C.A.?

Mr. Morris: My responsibility is to answer for Her Majesty's Government and not for the German Government, and I am not able to comment any further on what the hon. Gentleman has said.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of Malaysia, and a return to Labuan by the R.A.F. and the supply generally of fighter aircraft to Malaysia linked with the proposal for this return. The Government have considered very carefully the question whether we should be justified in stationing R.A.F. aircraft permanently in East Malaysia again, but we do not believe there is at present any threat which would warrant the return


of the R.A.F. to Labuan. I can assure the House that we can carry out our obligations in the area, if necessary.
Concerning the Hunters and Harriers, the Government and British aircraft firms are in close and continuing touch with the Malaysian Government about their requirements for fighter aircraft. An evaluation team, headed by chiefs of the air staff of the Royal Malaysian Air Force will be in this country next week to see and discuss the aircraft which might meet their needs. I shall have talks with them. I can assure the House that the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Technology and the firms concerned will give the team all the help and advice that they can. I hope that, as a result of our efforts, the Malaysian Government will buy British aircraft. Certainly they will not find better aircraft anywhere else.
I am sure the House will forgive me if I do not deal with the points made about the offset credit arrangements. I have a large amount of material on this matter and I will write to hon. Members about it.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) asked about the types of aircraft used in the Anguillan operation. We used a number of different types: VC10's, Britannias, Hercules, Andovers, and a Comet. It is much too early to give any indication of the cost of the operation. However, I hope that the troops will not be there for very long. We hope for an early withdrawal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) enjoyed himself tremendously in his speech on weather forecasting. We can all remember the times when the weather forecasters are wrong; we never remember the times when they are right. My hon. Friend's catalogue of grievances and his case for more specific and more detailed information has been noted. I was fascinated by what he had to say. He made a point of great value when he said that the aim all the time should be to provide to an even wider range of people the kind of service that is now enjoyed by a large number of industries. This is what we should aim for. Certainly the forecasts should be more accurate. There is not time to deal with

the new computer, but I will write to my hon. Friend about it. However, I hope that this new computer, which will be one of the largest in the country, will be able to provide the service with the ability to give an even better service of the kind that my hon. Friend wants.

Mr. Ellis: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Interventions prolong speeches. I have, however, no power to stop them.

Mr. Ellis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I should like my hon. Friend to examine how forecasts are made to adduce how well they have been carried out. I think that we need better criteria.

Mr. Morris: I have noted the need for some kind of better inquest machinery.
The hon. and gallant Member for Wembley, North (Sir E. Bullus) has apologised for not being able to stay. I think that my remarks about the transport fleet of the Royal Air Force earlier dealt with the anxieties that he expressed.
There were many other points, but I should like to deal with the point raised fairly late in the debate by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire about the aiming of helicopters. In case he should think that I am avoiding the issue by curtailing my remarks, in courtesy to the House, I will deal with this point immediately.
We have taken a decision to arm helicopters for the Army. They will be armed with the SS11. The order for the SS 11 is a small one to meet—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire raised the matter, and in courtesy to him I should be permitted to reply. As I was saying, the order for the SS11 is a small one to meet an urgent operational requirement to strengthen the anti-tank capabilities of the B.A.O.R. This weapon is already in service with the Royal Navy on the Wasp helicopter which is the naval version of the Scout. This order is without prejudice to any future weapons which may be considered for use in arming Army helicopters. I thought that the hon. Gentleman would be unhappy about what I had to say, so out of courtesy to him I thought that I had better inform him of that.

Mr. Hastings: It is madness.

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman has had his chance, and I am now having mine.
The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) asked about the release of information relating to flying accidents. The practice of not publishing regular statistics of accidents involving Service aircraft is of long standing, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we have been carrying out a review of this policy, the results of which will be announced in the near future. All useful information about Service aircraft accidents which have a bearing on flight safety is already released to the Board of Trade and others directly responsible for flight safety, as well as to the Ministry of Technology and the aviation companies, on a confidential basis.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that from the point of view of improving flight safety the publication of accident statistics is of less value than the lessons to be learned from the circumstances of individual accidents. Each accident is the subject of detailed investigation and searching analysis, and the results of each case are discussed fully with the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Technology. The Board of Trade makes full use of this knowledge in discharging its responsibility to civil aviation.
I am sure that at this late hour the House will forgive me if I do not deal further with any of the detailed points which have been raised. Perhaps I might be allowed to conclude by saying that the right theories and the right equipment are important, but that they are nothing without the right men—thoroughly professional in training and discipline, organised, responsive, leaving nothing to chance, yet with an adventurous spirit ready to rise to every challenge. The Royal Air Force has a remarkable tradition which combines high professionalism with a bold spirit, and in every way this tradition is fully maintained. It is a great Service, with a great future, which offers a great life to a young man worthy of it.

Question, That the said number be reduced by 1,000 men, put and negatived.

Original Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a number of Officers, Airmen and Airwomen, not exceeding 118,000, all ranks, be maintained for Air Force Service, during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1970.

IMMIGRATION APPEALS BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 3

APPEAL AGAINST CONDITIONS OF ADMISSION

12.43 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 28, leave out 'of a kind' and insert:
'restricting the period for which he may remain in the United Kingdom to less than seven or such other number of days as may be'.
I hope that my views on this Amendment and those that follow will continue the tone of the Committee upstairs, in other words, that in general they will be non-controversial.
The Government accept the recommendation of the Wilson Committee on this matter, and the Home Secretary intended, under subsection (1)(a), to make an Order which would afford an appeal against any condition which required a Commonwealth citizen to leave the United Kingdom in less than seven days, leaving any passenger admitted for a longer period to apply after entry for an extension of stay and to appeal if the extension were refused. The type of condition against which an immediate appeal would lie was left to be prescribed by Statutory Instrument, because experience might show that seven days was not the right limit for the purpose, and that a shorter or longer period ought to be substituted.
In discussion in Committee, the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) expressed the view that it ought to be made clear on the face of the Clause in what circumstances appeal would be available against the imposition of a condition of admission, and the Amendment meets that point. It makes it clear on the face of the Clause that an immediate appeal will lie against the imposition of a condition only if it is


one restricting the stay to less than a given number of days, and that this number will at the outset be seven. At the same time, the Amendment preserves a measure of flexibility to enable the Home Secretary to alter this number if an alteration seems justified in the light of experience.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Antony Buck: I am obliged to the Under-Secretary for having moved the Amendment, which meets the point which I raised and which was taken up by my hon. Friend in Committee, as reported in column 38 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Standing Committee proceedings. In our view, the Amendment is an improvement. It meets the point which was so fully argued in Committee and in the circumstances it would not be to anybody's advantage if at this late hour I wearied the House by deploying all the basic arguments behind it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8

DETERMINATION OF APPEALS

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 6, line 1, at end insert:
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of the foregoing subsection the adjudicator may review any determination of a question of fact on which the decision or action was based; and for the purposes of paragraph (a)(ii) of that subsection no decision or action which is in accordance with the immigration rules shall be treated as having involved the exercise of a discretion by the Secretary of State by reason only of the fact that he has been requested by or on behalf of the appellant to depart, or to authorise an officer to depart, from the rules and has refused to do so.

The Speaker: With this Amendment I suggest that we take the Amendments Nos. 3 and 4.

Mr. Rees: Amendment Nos. 3 and No. 4 make consequential changes of wording in the present subsection (2).
Subsection (1) permits an adjudicator to allow an appeal if he consider that the decision in question was not in accordance with the law or the applicable immigration rules which we discussed in

Committee, but otherwise, apart from cases involving the exercise of discretion, the appeal must be dismissed.
There are cases when an entitlement to admission depends on Section 2 of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962, that is, on the immigrant's satisfying the immigration officer of certain matters— for example, that he is under the age of 16, and that both his parents are living in this countrty. I am advised that it could be argued in such a case that if an immigration officer refused admission because dissatisfied on these facts, his decision would be in accordance with the law and the adjudicator could do nothing. The Amendment makes it clear that the adjudicator is to apply the law to the facts as he sees them. That is the nub and the crux of what lies behind the Amendment.
The remaining words of the new subsection (2) have a different purpose. In Standing Committee there was a debate— reported in columns 69 to 78 of HANSARD for 11th February—on an Amendment to delete Clause 8(1)(a)(ii), in the course of which the question of appeals against discretionary decisions was discussed at length. The Government remain of the opinion that it is right to allow the appellate authorities to review the exercise of discretion by the Home Secretary or immigration officers, though only within the framework of the immigration rules.
It was suggested by the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg), who has explained to me why he cannot be here tonight, that the Clause might be amended so as to make this limitation explicit. I agreed to consider the suggestion and the second half of the new subsection (2) is intended to give effect to it.
The new provision makes it clear that refusal by the Home Secretary to make an exception to the immigration rules in favour of a particular immigrant cannot be reversed on appeal. This is in accordance with the recommendation of the Wilson Committee in paragraph 140 of its Report. So where a person was admittedly seeking to enter for employment and settlement without a voucher, a decision not to admit him could not be reversed on appeal whatever compassionate or other circumstances might be alleged.

Mr. Buck: The Amendment is useful in that, in its second half, it meets a point raised in Committee by my hon. Friends. Our only doubt is about the efficacy of Clause 8 as a whole. Although we debated this matter at length in Committee, I must record our doubts about the propriety and sense of having appeals overall against discretion. We believe that there is a lot to be said for matters raised on appeal to be confined to matters of fact and of law. The Amendment says that
… the adjudicator may review any determination of a question of fact on which the decision …
of the immigration officer has been based.
A provision of this kind should be in the Bill—I am surprised that it needed this Amendment to do that; I should have thought that that would have been the position, even without the Amendment—and as this proposal merely makes the situation clear and points out that the adjudicator will review matters of fact and arrive at his own conclusions on those matters of fact, we have no objection to it. However, I am still not convinced of the need for the Amendment. If the Minister takes the view that it makes for clarity, we will not oppose it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 3, in line 3, leave out 'subsection (1)' and insert 'the foregoing provisions'.

No. 4, in line 4, leave out 'it applies' and insert 'they apply'.—[Mr. Merlyn Rees.]

Clause 9

SPECIAL PROCEDURE IN CASES INVOLVING NATIONAL SECURITY

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 6, line 30, leave out 'for the purpose'.
This is a drafting Amendment which deletes words that are now superfluous. It is consequential on an Amendment made in Standing Committee on 11th February; hon. Members will see it referred to in columns 80 and 81 of the Committee OFFICIAL REPORT.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10

REFERENCE OF CASES FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 7, line 3, leave out from 'refer' to 'the' in line 6 and insert:
'for consideration under this section any matter relating to the case which was not before the adjudicator or Tribunal.
(2) Any reference under this section shall be to an adjudicator or to the Tribunal, and the adjudicator or Tribunal shall consider the matter which is the subject of the reference and report to the Secretary of State'.
The Amendment has two purposes: first, to alter the definition of the circumstances in which the Home Secretary may refer a case back to the appellate authorities for further consideration, and, secondly, to make it clear that a case which, on appeal, went no higher than an adjudicator can be referred to the Tribunal.
This matter was discussed at some length in Committee, when the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) suggested that the wording of the Clause, namely
… the Secretary of State may at any time refer to an adjudicator or the Tribunal any further matter relating to that case which has subsequently been brought to his notice …
was too limiting. It was pointed out that a matter might have been brought to the notice of an immigration officer or of the Home Office at an early stage, but its significance might not have been fully appreciated until after the appeal had ben dismissed. The Amendment meets this criticism by enabling the Home Secretary to refer to the appellate authorities any matter which was not before them when the appeal was dismissed.
Where a case which, on appeal, went no higher than an adjudicator is referred for further consideration under the Clause, it would be useful for the Home Secretary to have a choice between referring it to an adjudicator and referring it to the Tribunal. Reference to an adjudicator may be appropriate if the new matter bears only on the facts of the particular case, and particularly if it involves the taking of fresh oral evidence.
Reference to the Tribunal may be more appropriate if the new matter raises any


general question of principle. The Clause us altered by the Amendment, at the cost of some increase in its length, avoids any implication that a case must be referred back at the level at which the appeal was decided.
In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman)—who has explained to me that he cannot be here tonight—asked whether a case referred under the Clause to an adjudicator would come before the same adjudicator who dealt with it on appeal. The answer is that the assignment of cases to particular adjudicators is not a matter for the Home Secretary but for the Chief Adjudicator under Schedule 1(5) who would no doubt have in mind the desirability in certain cases of bringing a fresh mind to bear on the evidence.

Mr. Buck: As the Minister indicated, our approach in Committee was to try to be helpful about the general drafting of this Measure, although we made clear our grave doubts about the cost, scope and so forth. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for admitting that the point we raised in connection with this Amendment had some substance, but we question whether the Amendment goes far enough. Would it not be useful for the Minister himself to have power of his own volition to refer a matter where there is doubt to an adjudicator? It is useful that he should have power to refer any new matters to the adjudicator for consideration in a particular case which is the subject of appeal. It might be useful for him to have this power if there is doubt so that it can be considered in a semi-judicial way. Perhaps such a provision could be made in another place.
As the Amendment was begotten, as it were, by us, we welcome it and hope that the Minister may consider going further and acquiring more discretion.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I looked most carefully at this point and at all the suggestions made in Committee. I think, however, that this is as far as we need to go, but I will look again at the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 22

SHORT TITLE, INTERPRETATION AND COMMENCEMENT

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 14, line 25, at end insert:
(6) No provision of Part I of this Act shall be construed as conferring a right of appeal against any decision or action which was taken before the coming into operation of that provision.
This is an Amendment for the removal of doubt. The question may be raised in the early stages of the appeal system whether Clauses 2 to 5 confer rights of appeal against decisions taken before the relevant Clause comes into operation. For example, will it be possible on the date when Clause 2(1)(a)—appeal against refusal of admission—comes into operation, to appeal against a decision to refuse admission which was taken the previous day? This will be a question of practical importance if the person concerned is still awaiting removal. The Government are advised that the Bill as it stands would probably not be interpreted as affording a right of appeal against a decision taken before the relevant Clause came into force unless there were some express provision to that effect. Nevertheless, the contrary view could be argued and it would be undesirable to leave a question of such importance open to argument at the very start of the appeal system.
The Amendment accordingly makes it clear that the Bill confers no right of appeal against a decision taken before the relevant provision comes into operation. There are strong practical reasons for imposing this restriction.

1.0 a.m.

Mr. Buck: We on this side are on almost every occasion against retrospective legislation. The Amendment makes it clear that we shall in no circumstances be dealing with or be involved in any way with retrospection, so we welcome it.
Perhaps the Minister will indicate what is the intended timetable relative to the bringing into operation of the Measure. It would be useful for the House to have this information. A great deal of work must obviously be done to prepare accommodation. It will be necessary to


prepare the appropriate orders which will govern the procedures of the tribunal and of the adjudicators. We should be interested to hear where there is any prospective timetable or whether indications can be given. We have grave doubts about the whole of the Bill.
Our view has been made clear that there should be a reorientation of the whole system for the control of immigration, in which control in the country of origin and the introduction of an entry certificate system become virtually universal. As that is our policy, which we shall introduce in due course, we are especially interested in the proposed timetable relative to the bringing into operation of various parts of the Bill. If a system such as that I have described were to come into effect, large parts of the Bill would become superfluous.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I am interested to learn that compulsory entry certificates would become universal. Such certificates would lead to great practical problems that the hon. Gentleman knows not of.

Mr. Buck: Almost universal.

Mr. Rees: The smal print which we are now given brings us a little closer together. If the argument is as to the need for entry certificates, there is no division between us on the desirability of advertising that people should use entry certificates.
On the timing of the implementation of Part I, it is still too early to fix a date. It depends, not only on the passage of the legislation, but on the completion of a great many administrative preparations. There are rules of procedure to be drafted and these will be rules of some complexity. They will have to be submitted in draft to the Council on Tribunals for comment. This process can begin while the Bill is in another place, but the rules cannot be made until the Bill has received the Royal Assent. The rules will then be subject to review in Parliament under the negative Resolution procedure. There is the appointment of members of the Tribunal and of adjudicators. Preliminary steps in this direction can be taken while the Bill is before Parliament, but naturally no definite offer of appointment can be made before the Royal Assent. There are preparations to

be made at the ports by way of ensuring that accommodation is available. We discussed that point in Committee. There will also have to be discussions with the voluntary bodies, a point which we discussed in Committee and about which the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) knows a great deal. Extra staff will be needed at the Home Office to deal with the additional work arising from appeals. I do not want to exaggerate the amount of work involved, but it is considerable. There is certainly a built-in incentive for the Home Office to move as quickly as possible, but I cannot give any precise date. As soon as practical, we shall do so but, as I have indicated, there are a number of practical problems to be dealt with first.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3

RELEASE OF APPELLANTS PENDING APPEAL

Dame Joan Vickers: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 21, line 7, after 'officer' insert 'with a warrant'.
In Committee the Under-Secretary was kind enough to accept a rather similar Amendment in regard to the powers of immigration officers. He undertook to consider this Amendment, because he was in two minds about it. I had hoped that he would have tabled an Amendment himself at this stage. As he has not, I have tried another method of getting my own way or of safeguarding the position. In Committee the Under-Secretary stated that immigration officers already had powers of arrest comparable with police officers in matters connected with immigration control. I gather that this comes under the Aliens Order, under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. I do not think that in either case, however, they have power to arrest for breaking bail, which is the important point of the Amendment.
I should like to know from the Minister whether these officers have any other powers of arrest except, as the hon. Gentleman said in Committee, at the point of entry at the ports. The hon. Gentleman has kindly sent me a


letter, but it is rather contradictory to what he said in Committee, because the letter states that
one point which perhaps did not emerge clearly during our discussion in Standing Committee is that at most ports the adjudicator will not sit to hear appeals in the precincts of the port itself, but in premises at some distance from the port boundary. At London Airport, for example, the buildings at Harmondsworth that we propose to use are outside the airport perimeter; and at seaports, the adjudicator is likely to make use of buildings in the town that are used by courts or other tribunals.
In Standing Committee, in reply to one of his hon. Friends, the Minister said:
This is to prevent him absconding. Appeals will be heard at the airport. We do not envisage that it will be necessary to have police there."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 18th February, 1969; c. 161.]
Apparently, according to the Minister's letter, the appeals are not to be heard at the airport, unless I have misunderstood him. This makes quite a difference to my proposition.
I assume that the ordinary civil police will be at the courts, because they normally attend them. The immigration officers will have to do the travelling from the point of entry and from the airport to the courts. This makes a great difference in the whole approach to my suggestion.
An immigration officer is a member of the executive grade of the Civil Service and is not subject to the Police Code. Therefore, no complaint can be made against him if he makes an unlawful arrest. This is what particularly worries me. He may make a mistake but, I gather, no complaint can be made.
I regret to say that in some cases, the situation between the immigration officers is not, perhaps, as happy as it was when the 39 immigration officers at London Airport issued their statement supporting the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South west (Mr. Powell)—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It will help the Official Reporters if the hon. Lady speaks up a little.

Dame Joan Vickers: At this late hour, Mr. Speaker, I was trying to hurry. I am sorry if you do not think that I was speaking loudly enough. Would you like me to repeat what I was saying?

Mr. Speaker: I was not calling the hon. Lady to order. I was only saying that the Official Reporters would be pleased if the hon. Lady spoke up a little.

Dame Joan Vickers: The Council of Churches also wrote to the Minister expressing its fears concerning this matter. I do not know whether it has yet received a reply. As the hon. Member was of two minds about this point, if he cannot accept my Amendment—I recognise that he might not be able to; I am not altogether pleased with it, but it was the best way that I could express my feelings about the matter in view of the earlier refusal—perhaps he will consider what action might be taken to safeguard against this undesirable situation.
My particular worry is that information might be laid to the immigration officer by somebody who has stood surety for an immigrant who might have quarrelled with him, who might not like the immigrant or might be actuated by malice. I do not see how an immigration officer will be able to make a distinction in the case of letters which he receives, as stated in the Bill.
If an immigration officer receives a letter, must he make the arrest or can he ask another immigration officer or a constable to make the arrest on his behalf? The whole situation is so unclear and so unsatisfactory that if the Minister cannot tonight accept my Amendment, I hope that he will give an assurance to look at the matter, and perhaps an Amendment can be put down in another place.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: In answering this debate, I should not like to go back to the days a year ago when 39 immigration officers supported the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). Immigration officers have to do a most difficult job. I should be the last to condone what was done, but there is often a strong feeling at the ports that they do no have a great deal of support from the community as a whole in doing what, in many respects, is not the world's most pleasant job. As I said in Standing Committee, any odium there may be is far better put on the politicians who arrange the rules rather than on the people who carry them out.

Dame Joan Vickers: I made my feeling on that clear in Committee, and I did not want to reiterate it tonight.

Mr. Rees: Yes. Nevertheless, I felt that some justification of the background to it, without justifying what was done, was called for.
I should make clear at the outset that immigration officers already have concurrent powers to arrest, without the police, in matters connected with immigration control. So far as I am aware, and so far as the Home Office is aware, there has never been any complaint arising from their exercise. This must be the starting point for me. I could find no example of a situation where there had been complaint. But the power arises from the nature of the job which immigration officers have to do under the 1962 Act and the Aliens Order, and it is vital that it should be there.
In Committee, I accepted an Amendment which removed from the Bill words which would have given immigration officers as well as the police powers of entry into premises in different parts of the country to effect an arrest. I consider that that was right, because the fewer people that have powers of arrest the better. I was glad to accept that Amendment.
The Amendment which the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) has now put to us arises out of the possibility of bail under the Bill. There may be problems arising from the granting of bail. This is a possibility which I have to take into account because— goodness knows—there are enough problems already arising out of immigration control. Paragraph 9(1) of Schedule 3 permits an appellant who has been released on bail to be arrested without a warrant either by an immigration officer or by a police officer in circumstances in which a person released on bail in criminal proceedings may be arrested under Section 23(1) of the Criminal Justice Act, 1967, that is, if the arresting officer has reason to apprehend a breach of recognisance, or if a surety expects that a breach will occur.
The Amendment—it is defective in drafting but I make no point of that, since such things can be put right—is intended to provide that an immigration officer may exercise this power of arrest only with a warrant. As the hon. Lady

said, I have already explained to her that the sort of idea which we discussed in Standing Committee was not possible, and she has come back, as she delightfully put it, to try to get her own way, which is always the prerogative of her sex.
It seemed to be agreed by all hon. Members who spoke on the subject in Committee—and it is accepted by the Government—that it should be left to the police to effect the arrest of a bail-breaker whenever police officers are available. The reason why I do not propose to confine the power of arrest entirely to the police is very much related to what might happen if an appellant who had been on bail turned up at the place where his appeal was to be heard but decided to abscond before the appeal came on for hearing. I recall the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) pointing out in Committee that a similar problem could arise if an appellant were allowed to be on bail during the lunch interval and then decided to abscond.
It would be inappropriate to the nature of the proceedings of an adjudicator's hearing, as well as wasteful of police manpower, to have police officers in attendance at the hearing of immigration appeals. There being no police officer present, the only person with power to prevent an appellant from absconding in the circumstances I have described would be one of the officers attending appeals on behalf of the immigration service.
1.15 a.m.
Perhaps I should make clear one point on which I was thinking aloud in Standing Committee, largely because I wanted to be helpful. The premises in which the appeals will be heard will not always be in the precincts of the port itself. At London Airport the buildings at Harmondsworth that are to be used for the hearing of appeals are outside the airport perimeter. At seaports an adjudicator is likely to make use of buildings in the towns which are used by courts and other tribunals. This means that the port authorities' police will not, as was suggested in Standing Committee, be at hand to arrest an absconding appellant at an immigration officer's request. It also means that I cannot accept the suggestion of the hon.


Member for North Fylde that the immigration officers' power of arrest should be limited to the port area.
The Amendment proposes that an immigration officer should still have the power of arrest but only where a warrant has been granted. However, as I have explained, in the kind of situation in which I envisage that an immigration officer might have to exercise the power himself because no police officer was available, there would certainly not be time to apply to a magistrate for a warrant. The Amendment would deny immigration officers any effective power to take action when an appellant absconded.
As I explained at the beginning, immigration officers have powers of arrest already. I am absolutely sure on investigating this question, as I promised in Committee upstairs that I would, that it is vital they should have. I wrote to the hon. Lady and explained this point. I am equally sure that to have to get a warrant in the case of a person absconding from bail would take time which, in the circumstances, I am equally sure could not be afforded. For those reasons I resist the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

GENOCIDE BILL [Lords]

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

DISTRICT VALUER (BASINGSTOKE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Concannon.]

1.18 a.m.

Mr. David Mitchell: It is a time-honoured prerogative of Members of this House to raise on the Adjournment of the House a matter involving an unsatisfactory answer to a Parliamentary Question. There is also the duty that a Member should seek to protect citizens from injustice caused by the Government or those who act on the Government's behalf. This is what I seek to do in this debate.
I am indeed grateful to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that he is here to listen to what I have to say at nearly 1.20 a.m. I should perhaps help him by explaining a little of the background. Basically what we are dealing with here is a long series of complaints from myself that an unsatisfactory situation exists, regular reassurances from the Treasury that all is well and the final denouement of an independent Land Tribunal hearing which has shown that all is very much not well.
I should like to sketch in the background. I have in my constituency two expanded towns. They are the towns of Basingstoke and Andover. In both cases the town centres are having to be pulled down and new town centres built. Land outside is being acquired for housing to bring a large population down from London, and that involves compulsory purchase. Nobody likes compulsory purchase, but everybody recognises that in such circumstances it is essential and there is no way round it.
Shortly after I became Member for Basingstoke I started to receive letters on the subject. Like most hon. Members, I run a surgery in my constituency and constituents come to see me. I have had many painful interviews, and a large volume of complaints, with constituents in tears telling me how unfairly they felt that they were being treated. Without any prompting from me, in 1966 the Chamber of Commerce called a public meeting to protest about the situation. I raised the matter in


the House in 1965. I tried to raise it in 1966, Mr. Speaker, but did not succeed in catching your eye. I raised it in 1967 and in 1968.
It seems to me that two of three things are happening. One possibility is that my constituents are raising frivolous complaints which have no basis. A second possibility is that the code of compensation is wrong. A third possibility is that there is bad administration in the Minister's Department at Basingstoke.
I rebut the suggestion that my constituents' complaints are frivolous, for two very good reasons. First, in many cases their complaints are supported by the views of their professional advisers. I have made myself unpopular with a number of constituents by saying to them, "I am not prepared simply to accept the story you tell me; I want to know what your own professional adviser tells you." If they have no case, I tell them so, but many of them do have a case.
The first question which I should like to draw to the attention of the Financial Secretary is reminiscent of the dog in the story about Sherlock Holmes—the dog which did not bark in the night. In this case, all the complaints are at Basingstoke and none is at Andover. But both are expanded towns and both fall under the same compensation code. That is indicative of a situation which is special and peculiar to Basingstoke.
The second possibility is that the compensation code is wrong. In fact, I believe that it is unfair. Basically, it provides that the compensation to be paid in respect of compulsory purchase in an expanded town is that which would have been the value if the town had not been an expanded town. This means, at any rate in theory, that a man who receives compensation for compulsory purchase can take his money, leave the town where he is living and buy an equivalent property somewhere else. In practice, this is one of my reasons for suggesting that something is wrong. Very rarely can he do so with the money he gets at Basingstoke. Nevertheless, the code causes hardship. It means that a man must move away from his family, from the place which has been his home, where his relatives, his friends and his work are situated and from the locality in which he has lived all his life. In my

view this cannot be a fair and proper way for compensation to work.
It is a curious code of compensation. I have one case in the constituency in which the district valuer offered £400 for three acres because some other attached land had been sold separately for a higher figure for private development. In one case, still not settled, the district valuer is offering £1 for three-quarters of an acre because some of the land attached to it has been sold at the open-market value. I say no more than that this is a curious code which I believe warrants further investigation. I have raised the matter in the House four times. If the Minister agrees that this is an unsatisfactory code I hope that, if his predecessors have not done so, he will make representations to the Minister of Housing and Local Government to secure a change in it.
A third possibility is that of bad administration at Basingstoke. The compensation code is complex, and I have great sympathy with those who have to administer it. We must not overlook the enormous work load which has fallen on the district valuer's office at Basingstoke during the period of town expansion. It may be that the Treasury has been too tight-fisted in the number of staff it has allowed. I do not know. I am not seeking to attack an individual. I do not have pleasure in raising bad administration in this case, but I have a first duty, as any hon. Member has, to protect the citizens in my constituency.
In July, 1966, I sought to raise the matter on the Consolidated Fund Bill debate, but it was not reached. So in September I wrote a six-page letter to the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury in which I set out the whole case. I am sure that the Minister will find it on his files, but it might be appropriate for me to quote briefly from two passages.
Having set out the situation and said how unsatisfactory it was, I said:
Therefore, for the above reasons and in view of the unsatisfactory way in which the Compensation Act operates, I hope you will agree with me it is of even greater importance that the District Valuer should lean over backwards to see that he is fair, if not generous, in the compensation given to those who are dispossessed.
I appreciate that the District Valuer in this case found himself in a town in which


there was no market value because of the effects of planning blight and therefore had to create a market. The willing sellers who were anxious to retire from business provided the basis of valuation for this market and now this is used as the yardstick against which the unwilling sellers are valued at what seems to me to be an artificially low valuation.
I gave two examples—Mr. Nutt and Mr. Alfred Cole. Alfie Cole recently drove to London in his pony and trap as a demonstration to the Prime Minister at No. 10, Downing Street about his treatment. He also, rather ill-advisedly I think, blocked the main street at Basingstoke with lorry loads of soil, which caused a considerable commotion. I say nothing to condone that way of drawing attention to such problems when there is a Parliamentary way. But if the Minister does nothing about the problem when it is raised he cannot blame me for the consequences.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is not there this justification for Mr. Cole, that his Member of Parliament has raised the matter at least three times already without the Government taking any effective action to redress it?

Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. It speaks for itself.
I went on in the letter:
In these circumstances and in view of the fact that in approximately half the appeals which have been made the valuation of the District Valuer has not been upheld by the Lands Tribunal, do you not yourself consider that it might be appropriate for one of your superintendent valuers to look more closely at the situation in Basingstoke?
The then Financial Secretary replied that that had been done. He added:
As I explained in my letter of 5th April, differences of opinion about value can, in the absence of a negotiated settlement, only be satisfactorily resolved by reference to the Lands Tribunal … clearly the right course … is to get a ruling from the Tribunal.
I may add that many people cannot afford this. The letter continues:
I am sorry that, in spite of the assurances I have already given, you should maintain your charges about the way the District Valuer is dealing with compensation claims. I can only say that the Revenue tell me that as a result of their investigations they are satisfied that the District Valuer is conscientiously trying to arrive at impartial valuations which will be fair to the claimants as well as to the acquiring authority.
The House will not blame me when I say that I took that as a reasonable, positive assurance from the then Financial Secretary.

I wrote to my constituent that the Inland Revenue had carried out this investigation but added:
I am still not satisfied, but I think the next step must me the reference of further cases to the Lands Tribunal and if this impartial body finds that the District Valuer is incorrect in further cases, then I think the case for an outside investigation will be clear beyond all doubt.
We have had that next hearing in front of the Lands Tribunal, which is the situation which has resulted. For the benefit of the hon. Member I have quotations from the Lands Tribunal proceedings, "E. Kaye … and Personal Representative J. R. Sharp. Reference 551966".
The Tribunal was asked to consider three things. The first was a point of law as to whether the valuation should be made one way or another; the second was one method of valuation and the third was an alternative method. The Tribunal found that, on a point of law, the district valuer had chosen the lower when he should have chosen the higher method. I do not seek to raise this legal question but, given a choice between two alternative methods of valuation, the choice was made against the interests of my constituent.
Let us look at the figures which came up on the valuations. On valuation A the district valuer's figure was £100,000; the Lands Tribunal found that the correct valuation should have been £220,000. On valuation B, the district valuer's valuation was £37,000; the tribunal found that a fair valuation would have been £115,000. The hon. Gentleman cannot defend this. The differences are so enormous. He would find the transcript of the hearing interesting reading. I do not wish to be unfair in any way. Anyone can make a mistake. The question is how these mistakes come about. How was such a large difference arrived at? If there were one error of judgment, it would be understandable, but was it perhaps a long series of errors of judgment all to the disadvantage of my constituent? Almost every option which was open was taken to the disadvantage of the man whose land was being compulsorily purchased.
First there was the refusal to take into account a valid offer for the same piece of land made a few weeks before the compulsory purchase order. It was claimed by the local valuation office that


this was not valid because it was made under the threat of compulsory purchase. I will quote from the Lands Tribunal's own report on this. It says:
Mr. Goodman, cross-examined on this point by Mr. Finer, gave an answer which stemmed logically from his valuation which we confess we find startling. I am sure that the House will find it startling also.
Question: I want you to assume that Lyon is saying 'I am very interested in this land. I am offering you £276,000 for it, subject to contract. I know that the local authority want it. Never mind, sell it to me just the same because I am willing to take the risk of compulsory purchase.' It is a big firm and that is the situation…. Your evidence is that if someone else came along and offered to write out a cheque, completion with contract, for £95.000 at that moment you would advise Mr. Kaye in all conscientiousness, to take the £95,000? Answer: Yes.
Question: And that strikes you as being perfect commonsense? Answer: Yes.
The Tribunal says:
With respect to Mr. Goodman, we do not believe that a competent surveyor would have given such advice or, if given, that any man of business would have acted on it.
Secondly, he ignored an earlier and similar transaction in which freehold land which was bought by Gaston Marbaix, claiming that it was not comparable. The Tribunal found that it was comparable and commented:
Mr. Goodman said the transaction was very complicated, almost too complicated to be of assistance to the Tribunal".
—the two greatest experts on land valuation in the country!
Thirdly, they base their valuation on assumptions that planning permission for access would not be likely to be forthcoming, on which the Tribunal found that it was likely to be granted:
It is also significant that the area planning officer, in a letter to the district valuer dated 15th July, 1964, said he thought the outline planning permission had lapsed but that, like the district valuer, he was 'of the view that permission might again be granted for a similar access'. Later, it appears that both these gentlemen changed their minds.
But, let it be noted, they changed them to the disadvantage of my constituent.
Finally, the district valuer based his calculation on the astonishing assumption that development of this land would have been delayed for 10 years, a delay which the Lands Tribunal did not find justified. So the Lands Tribunal found against the district valuer. This was a big case, but

my concern is with the smaller people who could not afford to bring a case lasting 24 days before the Lands Tribunal.
The compensation code is complex. It is essential that it should be administered with scrupulous fairness and humanity, otherwise great hardship and injustice will be caused to those who have their land and property acquired from them compulsorily. In almost every option which was open to him in this case, the district valuer's office exercised that option to the disadvantage of the citizen. It is more like the action of a horse dealer than that of an impartial valuer. I think that that is a summing-up of it which would be generally accepted in this Chamber at the moment.
The very important question that I want to put to the Financial Secretary is to ask if this valuation was unique. Did the local district valuation office behave in this way on just one occasion? Was it only this constituent who, for some reason which I do not understand, caused this horse-dealing approach to be made, or has this been the cause of the continuous stream of complaints that I have had about the operation of the compensation code in Basingstoke since I have had the honour to represent it in this House?
This is a very important question to which I must ask the Financial Secretary to address his mind. Was it unique, or was this his normal method of doing business?
It should not be forgotten that four cases have gone to the Lands Tribunal. In all of them it has been found that the district valuer's valuation was below the amount awarded by the Tribunal. I know that the hon. Gentleman will say that there were 700 odd cases which were accepted and that only four have gone to appeal, so the district valuer must be right. But do not let him imagine for a moment that there are 700 satisfied customers. I assure him that there are not. There are 700 people, many of whom could not afford to take a case to the Lands Tribunal. Many of them, ignorant of the facts, would have said to themselves, "Here is an independent person who is not seeking to drive a hard bargain on behalf of the local authority. He is an impartial person whose job it is to decide between us.


He says that that is what it is worth, so that must be what it is worth."
That is not what has happened when cases have been challenged. There are many people with a good case but who could not afford the expense involved if they lost. Having to pay the Council's legal fees as well as their own, indeed they might lose more than the value of the property that they sought to defend. I am sure that the council spent over £10,000 on this case. A small case might have cost only £1,000, but many of the people concerned could not afford that. Take Mr. Alfie Cole, for example. The bank has lent him more on the value of his land than the district value is prepared to pay for it. He cannot afford to risk any money on an appeal because his land will have gone and he will have an unsecured overdraft left standing against him at the local bank.
I want to allow time for the Financial Secretary to reply, and he has been very patient. But the Lands Tribunal has seen that this constituent has got justice. My question is, what about the others, the small people who could not afford to go to the Lands Tribunal?
I return to my original Question in the House on 28th January, when I asked the Minister
Would he not agree that this is an unsatisfactory state of affairs? What does he propose to do about it?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th January, 1969; Vol. 776, c. 1083.]
There was nothing in the answer which I then got which gave me any cause for satisfaction, but I invite the Financial Secretary to do so now.

1.40 a.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Harold Lever): I hope the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) will not think me discourteous if I intervene now, because I have the option of either doing that or leaving myself no time in which to reply.
The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) has asked me to consider the barking dogs of Basingstoke in contrast to the silent dogs of Andover, and I am well aware of the well-known reference in Sherlock Holmes to the dog that did not bark in the night. But the hon. Gentleman's constituents can congratulate themselves that they have a watchdog who was prepared to bark even

in the night, because of the extensive consideration given by our colleagues to business earlier before the House.
I do not complain that the hon. Member expresses himself forcibly in defence of his constituents' rights, because he is dealing with a subject of infinite complexity and very considerable difficulty.
I think I have to say at the outset that the district valuer's job is certainly not an enviable one. He has, on the one hand, not to act as a man anxious to drive the hardest possible bargain. He has to act as fairly and impartially as he can to reach a settlement which achieves a fair valuation of the land. It is no victory for him if he acquires for the public authority land at below its market value. There is no district valuer who is appreciated at head office for achieving such an advantage; that is not his job.
On the other hand, he is in the somewhat difficult position that he is the lone guardian of the public purse. It is very easy to be generous with the public purse. It is his duty, however, to protect public funds at the same time as achieving a fair bargain for the member of the public concerned, not altogether a happy situation for a professional man to find himself in, particularly as the area of judgment concerned in hundreds of cases is not susceptible to scientific estimation but only to calculation and assumption within legal rules of great complexity and great difficulty which involve him in solving conundrums about hypothetical values of what might have been the worth of the land but for the development entering into the computation.
I have a good deal of sympathy with all district valuers in fulfilling this task. They have the satisfaction of knowing that at the public cost any member of the public has the assistance of professional advisers. These advisers are exclusively advising the claimant. They have no responsibility to assess a fair value. They do not have this very difficult task but, without wishing to make an unjust claim, to advise their clients to the best of their professional ability.
Of course, if the district valuer errs in favour of a claimant, there is no appeal by the local authority and the money is paid out. But if the district valuer is wrong in the view of the advisers of the


claimant, they have the remedy of going to the courts. I know that the remedy, with small people, is an imperfect one, but this is one of the facts of life against which it is useless to prick. We have the same problem about other domestic matters for the enforcement of civil rights. It is a great pity, and perhaps we should look into the possibility of achieving greater economy in the administrative law which is applied to the Lands Tribunal. But there is an ultimate remedy available.
It is of the highest importance that district valuers should not unnecessarily drive the smaller people to the Tribunal, but should seek to reach a fair and equitable compromise. I think that the hon. Gentleman is wrong in inferring that this district valuer has fallen short of the high standards which I confidently expect from district valuers throughout the country. While they are protecting the public funds, they should seek to give fair play to the citizen affected, particularly the smaller one, where the right to go to the Tribunal has a certain academic quality because of the cost. It is wrong to infer from the volume of complaints that this district valuer, or any district valuer, has fallen short of the standards. I cannot accept that.
Imagine the bitterness in the cases cited by the hon. Gentleman where members of the public were offered what amounts to derisory sums for their land on the ground that they had sold other land to private developers at a high price. I can understand them feeling bitter about this.

But this is not the district valuer's fault. It is the correct operation of Section 7 of the Act passed in 1961 when, so far as I know, the party opposite was in Government. It may be that the code is unfair, but this is not a matter for me; it is a matter for the Minister of Housing and Local Government. The hon. Gentleman must speak to some of his hon. Friends about that.

Mr. David Mitchell: I carefully made the point about the £1 offered for three-quarters of an acre in my note on how unsatisfactory the code is and I suggested that the Minister should make representations regarding the code to the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

Mr. Lever: The hon. Gentleman was at no point inaccurate or, although he expressed himself vigorously, unfair; but I cannot accept any imputation of any kind on the district valuer concerned merely because there is a grievance. The code tends to grievance in certain of its workings, and not necessarily just grievance. I will look at that.
In conclusion, it is easy to make errors, in good faith, in valuations. It is no use—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twelve minutes to Two o'clock.